Subject:  Re: Could use some help with a by-law violation
Date:  Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:56:25 -0500
From:  Al Heigl <webmaster@minnesotamensa.org>
Reply-To: alheigl@millcityrecords.com
Organization:  Mill City Records, NARAS, Mensa, I.S.P.E., Triple-Nine, ex-MDA
To:  EldonCR <eldoncr@rrenviro.com>
References:  1 , 2 , 3

Hello, Eldon --

Thank you very much for your reply.

EldonCR wrote:
>
> Sorry, Al; I'm running about 2 1/2 weeks behind on my e-mails.

I can sympathize. I've got an inbox with over 900 e-mails in it; not
that very many of them need replies, but I'm years behind just on my
sorting and filing.

>
> You've given me a tall order and it will take a bit to check on all you've
> asked of me.

I'm frankly surprised at that assessment. I see just three simple facts
to be evaluated and acted on.


> However, a brief review indicates your interpretation of some
> of the "facts" and issues are at odds with my understanding.

I'm not seeing where these facts are subject to much interpretation at
all.


> More details as
> I can, but for now, know I am considering your case.

Please ensure that you are considering the right "case" -- there is
currently an ongoing dispute between some members of Minnesota Mensa and
me, regarding the Minnesota Mensa website and my position as Webmaster.

That dispute is NOT what I am asking you to look into, nor, I infer, has
anybody else, as you hadn't tried to get in touch with me about it
before I contacted you back on Friday, 3/25/2005.

The details of that local dispute, any facts, any interpretations, any
possible resolutions -- none of all that has the slightest relevance to
what I am asking you to intervene in.

The only thing about the original dispute that's relevant is that it
exists in the first place. And I assume you accept that as a fact.


Here, again, is a brief summary of why I've contacted you:


1. There is currently an ongoing dispute between some members of
Minnesota Mensa and me, regarding the Minnesota Mensa website and my
position as Webmaster.

The Minnesota Mensa Ombudsman, Eric Adams, has been investigating that
dispute for over a year; he has been in touch with me via both phone
conversations and e-mail. He has not, however, reported back any
results of his investigation, and thus has not yet made any efforts
toward settlement and/or redress of that dispute.

Our Region 4 Vice-Chairman, Cyndi Kuyper, has *not* investigated that
dispute, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement and/or redress
of it.

The American Mensa Ombudsman (that's you) has not investigated that
original dispute yet, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement
and/or redress of it.

Pam Donahoo, our Executive Director, has not investigated that dispute
yet, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement and/or redress of
it.

Neither has the AMC, nor Mensa International, I suppose, if it comes to
that, but you get the picture.

In short, starting with our local Ombudsman, only *one* of the Mensa
avenues of settlement and redress have yet to be availed of by the
disputing parties, and that one hasn't been completed yet.

I really don't see where there can be any varying "interpretation" of
these facts. There is a stepping-stone arrangement of avenues for
settlement and redress of Mensa disputes, and not even the first step
(local Ombudsman) has been done to completion.


2. If you will browse to

http://arbiter.wipo.int/cgi-bin/domains/search/CaseCatReport?lang=eng&case_prefix=D&case_year=2005&case_seq=0068

,
you will see that a significant component of that original local dispute
has been taken to the World Intellectual Property Organization
Arbitration and Mediation Center.

I don't see how it can be subject to "interpretation" that, with respect
to Mensa, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is precisely,
virtually by definition, an external authority.


3. Finally, I quote again:

---------------------
>From the Local Secretary Handbook, page 2-2 (page 15 in pdf file):

THE CONSTITUTION OF MENSA
[International Constitution of Mensa adopted April 1982.
Includes Amendments adopted 1982, 1985. Reprinted October 1992.]

III. MEMBERSHIP

D. DISPUTES WITHIN MENSA
Members having a dispute with Mensa, with any national Mensa or
subdivision thereof, or with another member arising out of Mensa-related
activities shall exhaust all avenues of settlement and redress within
the Society before taking the dispute to external authorities. Failure
to do so may be considered an act inimical to Mensa.
---------------------

That's fairly concise and precise and not subject to a lot of
"interpretation" in this case. The circumstances I've listed in points
1 and 2 above fit this By-Law exactly.


Conclusion:

There does in fact exist an internal dispute of Minnesota Mensa members
with another member, arising out of the Mensa-related activity of the
Minnesota Mensa website and its Webmaster.

All avenues of settlement and redress have *not* been exhausted; in
fact, most of them have not even been initiated.

WIPO is, by definition, an external authority.

Therefore, WIPO Case No. D2005-0068 is a clear violation of Mensa By-Law
IIID.

The violation is aggravated by the waste of Mensa dues monies involved.
Browse to http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/fees/index.html -- it looks to
me like somebody's blown at least $1500 on WIPO fees. That doesn't
count whatever is being paid to Jason Aquilino, the Venable lawyer who's
been claiming to represent Mensa on this. (I hope it isn't much -- he's
young, new at this, and has made a number of glaring mistakes that I've
been documenting.)

As far as I can tell, at least with respect to attorney's fees, the
meter is still running on this.

So the faster you can satisfy yourself as to the factual nature of
points 1, 2, and 3 above and get somebody to pull the plug, the better
for the Mensa budget.


Eldon, I hope this clarifies things further. If there is anything in
points 1, 2, and/or 3 above that you would like to discuss or debate
with me, please let me know ASAP.

And I also hope you will remember that any of the details of the
original dispute about our Minnesota Mensa website are NOT a necessary
part of your investigation into the WIPO case situation that I am asking
you to intervene in. You may well get to take a shot at sorting out
that original dispute, but that is NOT what is at issue here and now,
it's the violation of By-Law IIID.

Thanks for your time and interest in this.

Sincerely,

Al Heigl
Webmaster,
Minnesota Mensa
--

Alan Heigl
Mill City Records
P.O. Box 177
Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
507-663-6090
 

[Back to Unthreaded List]