Dear Al:
I'm pretty confident this response will irritate you,
and that you will
think I'm abrupt and harsh. I'm sorry, but I can't see any reason not to be
completely candid with you. I think you're already on very thin ice and urge
you to carefully consider my comments and suggestions. They will be embedded
within your latest e-mail:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Heigl" <webmaster@minnesotamensa.org>
To: "EldonCR" <eldoncr@rrenviro.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Could use some help with a by-law violation
> 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.
>
See below...
>
>> 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.
>
Bad assumption. I do not agree.
>
> 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.
>
A. Local Webmasters serve at the will of the ExComm or
the LocSec (depending
on the ByLaws of the particular group).
B. Webmasters serve until no longer wanted. If you were dismissed, asked to
resign, replaced, fired, or whatever, that is the local group decision. You
may argue how that decision may have been carried out according to your
particular bylaws, but ultimately, you, as a "servant" to the group, serve
at their will (as expressed through the group leadership).
C. Your volunteer work is a gift you give the local group. Thank you, by the
way, for trying to serve well in spite of the problems you've apparently had
with the leadership. Disputes of this nature are fairly common.
D. When one administration leaves, the volunteer positions they appointed
are, as a matter of course, vacated and the new leadership gets to fill them
with anyone they desire, however qualified (or not).
>
> 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.
>
That last sentence is a rather harsh assessment, isn't
it? How do you know
he has not spent time and effort trying to settle the dispute? The fact that
he has not been particularly candid with you about all he has done does not
mean he has "not made any efforts
tward settlement and/or redress".
> 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.
>
Again, rather harsh (and wrong). I've talked with Ms.
Kuyper, and she
understands the situation quite well. Not everyone who tries to solve an
issue has to report directly to you. You are, I believe, in the dark more
than you may know.
> 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.
>
I have now investigated more, even, than you asked me
to.
> 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.
>
Of all the accusations you've made, Al, this one
strikes me as perhaps the
most preposterous. How can you possibly say this? To investigate an issue,
talking to each party is not always necessary; sometimes it's even unwise.
Pam is very well versed in all WIPO matters as well as many others.
> Neither has the AMC, nor Mensa
International, I suppose, if it comes to
> that, but you get the picture.
>
I'm afraid I do get the picture, and your part in that
picture concerns me.
> 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 have talked to your Ombudsman, also. Your issue
before him may be
concluded very soon.
> 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.
>
This IS a matter for an outside authority (WIPO). When
you did not willingly
consent to the will of the group (as expressed by the elected leadership),
this type of matter AUTOMATICALLY goes to WIPO (outside the organization).
> 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.
>
Are you saying that a criminal matter needs to be
taken first to the local
Ombudsman, the ExComm, the RVC and AMC and then me prior to going to the
police? Criminal matters are not Mensa matters, and WIPO matters (and some
others) cannot be solved unless the parties quickly and WILLINGLY settle.
You didn't settle, so WIPO IS APPROPRIATE in this instance.
>
> 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.
>
In my opinion you are 100% wrong in that
interpretation. In this situation,
the issue is not "Mensa-related".
>
> 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.)
>
I believe YOU have cost Mensa whatever the fees have
been and will be (the
fact that mistakes have been made, glaring or otherwise, is totally
irrelevant).
> 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.
>
The sooner you comply with the wishes of the local
group, the sooner this
will be over and the less damage you will have caused, IMHO. I believe you
could already have committed an act (or acts) inimical to Mensa.
>
> 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.
>
It's a good thing I'm not making a decision right now,
because I'd probably
make short work of it. I'd probably tell you to give it up and let the group
do whatever they want (including "firing" you). I see no validity in your
argument to resist the will of the local group.
> 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
>
I urge you to quickly allow the local group to proceed
as they may wish (and
to heal).
Sincerely,
Eldon C. Romney, Ombudsman