Hey Al,
After all this time, I thought perhaps I'd never hear
back from you!
Yes, I did put this on the back burner, awaiting
information from you and
others.
One question first: What was the term of your
appointment as webmaster?
Normally appointees are appointed for no longer than the present term of the
officer who appoints. Local Mensa officers' terms expire every couple of
years, and unless you've recently been re-appointed as Webmaster, I don't
understand how you've retained your office.
As to your claim that "American Mensa's bringing of
WIPO Case No. D2005-0068
was a clear violation of Article IIID of the Mensa Constitution.", American
Mensa deals with WIPO actions the same way it would legal matters; it goes
to the authority who has jurisdiction. It would be the same in a case where
a law had been broken at a Mensa event: Mensa (or Mensans) would go through
the legal system, by first calling police, maybe consulting lawyers, etc.
I look forward to hearing back soon!
Eldon C. Romney, Ombudsman
801-541-0615
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Heigl [mailto:Webmaster@mn-mensa.org]
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:42 AM
To: EldonCR
Cc: Mensa Ombudsman
Subject: Re: Minnesota Mensa
Importance: High
Hello, Eldon --
I must admit that when this message came in last September, I thought it
was some sort of spoofed hoax from some one of the various people who
have been hassling me in other ways. But since I still haven't heard
from you with regard to the original complaint, I will now assume that
the message was in fact from you.
Which still leaves me scratching my head.
I've started this reply several times over the past few months, and
every time this scenario drifts through my mind: There's a lifeguard on
duty on his beach tower, and a woman runs up to him screaming that her
daughter is in trouble in the rough waves and needs his help right away,
and a few weeks later the lifeguard sees this woman on the street and
says to her, "Hey, I read in the paper that your daughter drowned, so
does that mean you've changed your perspective on needing my help?"
Anyway, let's get this thing back on track. Fortunately, nobody drowned
and what went wrong can still be set right, even at this late hour.
EldonCR wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Heigl:
>
> I trust you have heard that the WIPO issue was decided in favor of
American
> Mensa/Minnesota Mensa, and, in effect, against
you.
Well, actually, that wasn't the way it went at all. The "decision" was
in favor of American Mensa but *against* Minnesota Mensa. The lawyer,
Jason Aquilino, was so inept that WIPO decreed that Minnesota Mensa was
a co-respondent in the action, thus American Mensa was in effect suing
itself.
I immediately furnished WIPO with the name and mailing address of
Minnesota Mensa's LocSec, so that Minnesota Mensa could be properly
served with the paperwork. However, to the best of my knowledge, WIPO
failed to notify co-respondent Minnesota Mensa that it was a
co-respondent, and failed to provide Minnesota Mensa with a copy of the
amended complaint. I doubt if WIPO even furnished Minnesota Mensa with
a copy of the "decision" as I have a large envelope from WIPO mailed on
"26-07-05" and addressed to "Alan Heigl and Minnesota Mensa" that I
haven't even opened as I am not, and never have been, an officer of
Minnesota Mensa.
I will be getting back to WIPO on their mis-handling of this case (the
actual person making the decision apparently couldn't be bothered to
check on American Mensa's structure, as one line in his decision asserts
that Minnesota Mensa is based in Northfield, Minnesota). I will also be
looking into from where WIPO derives its authority, and bringing their
attention to, at the least, the issue that WIPO never provided all
co-respondents with a copy of the amended complaint, and thus prevented
either of us from filing a response to it.
> Does that fact change
> your perspective relating to the original complaint you filed with me?
What an odd question. To answer it directly, it does not change my
perspective in the slightest, but does intensify it. A lot of Mensa
money was wasted on ineffectual results to the detriment of the members
(and prospective members) of Minnesota Mensa. Something bad was done
that needs to be undone.
A more interesting question to me (and one that will probably be asked
by Mensa higher-ups some day) is why such a long period of time elapsed
between March 25, 2005 (when I first wrote to you about this) and
September 13, 2005 (when you sent me the e-mail to which I am replying)
without any apparent action from the Ombudsman on a matter that was of
some urgency, involved mis-use of Mensa monies, and had as its intent a
result that was "inimical to Mensa" as well.
Further, I don't really understand why my "perspective" would ultimately
be of concern or interest to you. My complaint basically reported to
you a massive, blatant, and costly violation of Article IIID of the
International Constitution of Mensa adopted April 1982. I would think
that any officer or titled volunteer, learning of a violation like this,
would follow it up to a resolution identifying the guilty parties and
ameliorating the damage -- no matter what the "perspective" of the
original complainant.
As of this past Tuesday, it would appear that exactly 16 months have now
elapsed since I first wrote to you. It would hardly be in Minnesota
Mensa's best interests for more multiple months to pass by before the
matter is resolved.
I have long thought that my original complaint (violation of IIID) would
take no more than a half hour or so to investigate, and perhaps an hour
or two more to initiate the process(es) to correct things.
In the interest of expediting things, I will outline the steps needed
here. As I wrote you back on 5/6/05,
I learned a lot when I (successfully) represented myself in the
custody fight for my daughter. One interesting thing is that what a
judge eventually hands down consists of three parts:
Findings of fact,
Conclusions of law, and
An Order.
Even more interesting, I learned that often, the judge will ask the
attorneys in a case to provide him with "Proposed Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order" and if he agrees with one of these
proposals, will use it as the basis of his judgment.
So it may speed things up if I work along those lines.
To start with, what is the "law" that is involved? Here is the direct
language:
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 seems fairly clear-cut. Here are the necessary and sufficient
questions that must be answered:
1. Was there a dispute as defined above?
2. Did the dispute arise out of Mensa-related activities?
3. Were all avenues of settlement and redress within Mensa exhausted?
4. Was the dispute taken to an external authority?
I provided you with the affirmative answers to these questions back on
3/25/05, and 4/14/05, but I will again summarize them:
1. There was (and still is) an ongoing dispute. Originally it began
between Judy Hogan, as AG2003 Chair, and me, as Webmaster, over the
incompetent webwork done by Jason Schmitz for AG2003. The starting date
for this dispute could be placed around 7/8/02.
(http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/emails/ag-email07.htm)
This original situation escalated into Judy Hogan attempting to "shoot
the messenger" -- and justify her poor judgment in having Schmitz do web
pages -- by having me removed as Webmaster. I refused to cooperate with
this, since it would have been (and proved to be) an act inimical to
Minnesota Mensa, and also because it violated a by-law (American Mensa
By-Laws, IX(3)).
Subsequent to this, on August 10, 2002, Minnesota Mensa and I signed a
negotiated, written settlement agreement that, among other things,
reinstated me as Webmaster of Minnesota Mensa.
Ordinarily, at this point, the original dispute would have been
considered settled. However, because Judy Hogan (and perhaps some of
her buddies on the board) didn't care for the certain parts of the
settlement agreement, they refused to fully honor all of its provisions.
The only question here is whether this malfeasance on the board's part
meant that the original dispute is considered to be continuing despite
the signed written settlement agreement, or whether their refusal to
fully comply with the settlement agreement created a new dispute.
Either way, the question is moot, as either way, there was still an
ongoing dispute over the Minnesota Mensa website at the time of the WIPO
action.
2. This dispute did arise out of Mensa-related activities -- the
Minnesota Mensa website.
BEAR IN MIND: IIID does not concern itself with the nature of the
dispute, or its merits, or its eventual disposition.
(It does not care, for example, if the dispute involves a bunch of
long-time cronies serving on the board trying to dump on a volunteer who
is a single custodial father of a 9-year-old daughter and who lives 40
miles away and is unable to physically participate in First Fridays and
other similar activities to become a member of the "in crowd" clique,
although that situation certainly qualifies.)
All that is required for questions 1 and 2 is that there actually be a
dispute and that it arose out of a Mensa-related activity. This is
indisputably the case here.
3. The "avenues of settlement and redress" within Mensa are numerous.
To list just a few:
LocSecs, past & present -- allowed Judy Hogan to escalate the original
dispute, failed to honor the signed written settlement agreement.
Local Ombudsman -- Eric Adams was first mentioned in the board minutes
of 3/2/04: "Al Heigl matter: Discussed status. Eric Adams has indicated
he wishes to remain impartial until he has all the information." We had
a couple of lengthy phone conversations subsequent to that, and
exchanged a couple of e-mails, the last being one from me to him on
3/16/2005. At the 5/1/06 board meeting, however, Eric was defeated 5-2
for (re-)appointment as Ombudsman, so apparently during the remainder of
his term, he did nothing regarding the original dispute, as there has
never been anything about it in board meeting minutes, and I never heard
back from him either. (Details at
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/board_meetings.htm#bm060501.)
Region 4 Vice Chairman -- Cyndi Kuyper has *not* investigated that
original dispute, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement
and/or redress of it.
Mensa Executive Director -- Pam Donahoo has *not* investigated that
original dispute, and has not made any efforts toward a settlement
and/or redress of it. To the contrary, she was an instigator of the
WIPO case.
Mensa Ombudsman -- That's you, Eldon, and you're your own best witness
with your e-mail to me of 4/21/05, where you wrote, "I have been asked
to make a decision on all the issues you have regarding the local
group." You thereby acknowledged that the dispute existed and was
Mensa-related, and you obviously hadn't been involved with it prior to
being asked to, so you were not involved in it at the time the WIPO case
was initiated.
Article IIID says "... all avenues of settlement and redress within the
Society ..." so I don't have to go beyond your not yet being involved at
the time of the WIPO initiation. And, of course, further avenues above
and beyond AML Ombudsman exist within the Society, all the way through
to Int'l. Mensa, that I haven't gone to yet (and hopefully will not have
to).
4. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an "external
authority" and is not a part of Mensa in any way. I would hope that
this is self-obvious. You can, of course, go to
http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/ and read all about WIPO, or you could
contact them and ask if they are affiliated in any way with Mensa,
and/or you could contact Mensa (at any level) and ask if they are
affiliated in any way with WIPO, but I don't think you'll get many
points for Mensa-level erudition.
5. I'm going to add a fifth item here, based on IIID's "Failure to do so
may be considered an act inimical to Mensa."
I don't think that there's any question that this aspect should be
invoked. Nobody involved in the chain of persons who could have been an
agent "of settlement and redress" lifted a finger to do so. The
intended purpose of the WIPO action was to deprive Minnesota Mensa of
its website (or at least its domain name for its website), thus
confusing and inconveniencing any member (or prospective member) from
readily accessing it.
Wasting Mensa funds is certainly an "act inimical to Mensa."
Furthermore, it appears that the instigation of the WIPO action was
based on outright fraud.
Our last board election campaign was wracked with dissent, and one of
the more virulent dissenters put up a mini-website. This website is
gone now, but before it was taken down, I copied it to my hard drive,
and can re-publish it as a sub-web of my own website.
Anyway, on the "MN Mensa Election Comments" page, Gordon Andersen wrote,
in part:
"Ombudsman Eric Adams had no success in dealing with Heigl either, so
the board asked for help from American Mensa, which requested a letter
affirming that Jensen was not authorized in any way to engage in a
contract. The letter was sent. After a protracted legal battle, at great
expense to American Mensa, our Web site was wrested from Heigl's control
by the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), which oversees
assignment of domain names."
Now, Gordon Andersen is a Minnesota Mensa member of long standing and
high involvement and repute. I believe he has served on the board over
the years; his late wife served on the board, and he also happens to be
Judy Hogan's father. So I can question his motives and biases, but he
is privy to a lot of inside information.
Examine his words.
The local Ombudsman "had no success in dealing with Heigl either" -- I
thought the idea of Ombudsman was someone who would impartially examine
the facts, etc. What Gordon would consider "success in dealing with" me
sounds like something un-Omsbudsman-like.
But my point in quoting Gordon's paragraph is this -- apparently a
letter was sent from Minnesota Mensa (LocSec?) "affirming that Jensen
was not authorized in any way to engage in a contract."
Now I know that such a letter would be a bald-faced lie; anyone would
know that by looking at this e-mail:
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/emails/ag-email46.htm.
Furthermore, Gordon says that "American Mensa" requested this letter.
Presumably, that means Pam Donahoo. Now, why would American Mensa
request such a letter? Look again at that e-mail link above. The "To:"
list is all of the board members, being notified in advance that Paul
Jensen was authorized to "conduct the affairs" of Minnesota Mensa. But
note particularly the CC: list -- <ExecutiveDirector@AmericanMensa.org>
was also notified. (Not to be unduly unkind, but also note
<GKAndersen@aol.com> -- that's Gordon Andersen -- he was notified *at
the time* that Paul was authorized to act.)
Note also that Gordon was dead wrong to assert that "our Web site was
wrested from Heigl's control by the WIPO" -- I mean, really!
The first and over-riding duty of any Webmaster is to keep the website
up and running, and to defend it against attack.
Within 90 seconds of minnesotamensa.org being ripped off from our local
group, I was publishing our website to
http://www.mn-mensa.org/ and we
have been doing nicely at that domain name for well over a year.
(Back on 7/19/05, I did get an e-mail from Clifton McCann with the
subject line "Unauthorized use of MENSA etc." to which I replied on
7/22/05 with a subject line "Re: False allegations of unauthorized use
of MENSA etc." in which I asserted that my use of the Mensa logo, etc.,
was completely authorized in that I was the Minnesota Mensa Webmaster
and I "had it in writing." Haven't heard back from him, and certainly
nobody's been stupid enough to initiate WIPO 2, the Sequel.)
By the way, do browse to
http://www.minnesotamensa.org/ and see another
detrimental effect of the WIPO action. "Parking" one of Minnesota
Mensa's intuitive and known domain names is certainly another "act
inimical to Mensa."
===================================================
Thus endeth your fact-finding phase.
As I mentioned above, litigants are often invited to file "Proposed
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order" so I will do so here:
Proposed Findings of Fact:
1. There was (and still is) an ongoing dispute. Originally it began
between Judy Hogan, as AG2003 Chair, and Al Heigl, as Webmaster, over
the incompetent webwork done by Jason Schmitz for AG2003.
2. This dispute arose out of Mensa-related activities -- the Minnesota
Mensa website.
3. All avenues of settlement and redress within Mensa were not
exhausted at the time of the WIPO filing.
4. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an "external
authority" and is not a part of Mensa in any way.
5. Among several things detrimental to Mensa, significant Mensa funds
were wasted, and current and prospective members of Minnesota Mensa were
frustrated in being forced to find the new address (mn-mensa.org) of
Minnesota Mensa's website.
Proposed Conclusions of Law:
American Mensa's bringing of WIPO Case No. D2005-0068 was a clear
violation of Article IIID of the Mensa Constitution.
Furthermore, American Mensa's bringing of WIPO Case No. D2005-0068
qualifies as an act inimical to Mensa.
Proposed Order:
American Mensa should therefore take the following actions:
1. Identify all persons who were personally contributory to the WIPO
action being filed, and initiate appropriate disciplinary action.
2. Notify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that AML's
bringing of WIPO Case No. D2005-0068 was in violation of Mensa's
Constitution, and, therefore, American Mensa formally withdraws the
complaint and requests that the WIPO decision be nullified, and the
domain name minnesotamensa.org be restored to its original owner as
registered prior to the D2005-0068 action.
3. American Mensa should immediately re-direct the parked domain name
minnesotamensa.org to point to the Internet address pointed to by
mn-mensa.org, while commencing the transfer of the domain name
minnesotamensa.org to its original owner.
===================================================
Eldon, I don't envy you as our Ombudsman having to deal with this
situation. I could even understand if you had put it miles away on the
back burner, perhaps hoping that it would "go away" on its own. It
won't. I won't, either, because I signed a written agreement with
Minnesota Mensa reinstating me as Webmaster and I am going to continue
to honor that contract and carry out my duties as Minnesota Mensa
Webmaster.
I don't know what kind of "disputes" Article IIID anticipated, or the
sorts of things a Mensa Ombudsman would be called upon to deal with.
For all I know, it might be mostly low-level stuff like one
member-volunteer arguing with another member-volunteer over who was
supposed to work the State Fair booth from 4 to 6 on Tuesday.
This is high-level stuff, and I can't imagine anyone "wanting" to deal
with it.
(Bear in mind, this is ONLY dealing with the WIPO action being a
flagrant violation of Article IIID. It has nothing to do with the
original dispute, which I expect you will be dealing with soon as well,
and I will have more information for you on that in the near future.)
Mindful of the previous paragraph, you still have a bunch of long-time,
entrenched, in-crowd cronies who have had leadership positions for so
long in Minnesota Mensa that they apparently think it's their own
sandbox, and they can do anything they please, including dumping on a
volunteer doing his job, and refusing to comply with a written agreement
to which Minnesota Mensa was a signatory.
Then, now specifically referring to the WIPO action, they also
apparently have assumed that anything they do or say will be accepted
(or excused) by AML higher-ups just because they're the long-term
elected (and re-elected, and re-elected) leadership and would never
violate the rules or dissemble about it later to AML.
And what of AML higher-ups? Pam Donahoo should have been familiar with
Article IIID, and should have determined what the facts of the original
dispute were instead of just blindly accepting what she was being fed by
the Minnesota Mensa in-crowd leadership. Certainly, Clifton McCann
should have known that Article IIID forbade bringing the WIPO action at
that time.
Let's not forget the wasted Mensa funds expended on the boondoggle,
either.
So you have an unenviable task -- to examine the facts as they apply to
Article IIID, and to conclude that specific persons in leadership
positions at Minnesota Mensa and American Mensa grossly, blatantly, and
expensively violated Article IIID, and to initiate disciplinary and
corrective actions.
Frankly, after all this wait, I'm very much looking forward to that.
Sincerely,
Al Heigl
Webmaster,
Minnesota Mensa
--
Alan Heigl
Mill City Records
P.O. Box 177
Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
507-663-6090
(Professional Proofreading,
Web Site Work using FrontPage/Expression
http://www.millcityrecords.com/webwork/