Hi, Dave --

Dave Remine wrote:
>
> Mr. Heigl, this is to inform you that after much consideration the
> Hearings Committee has decided to proceed with the scheduled September
> 16th, 2006 electronic hearing on the charges detailed in my letter to
> you of June 14th, 2006 (attached).

Excuse me? Electronic hearing?

Let's take a good look at that June 14th, 2006 letter. You, of course,
presumably have the original .doc file on your computer, since you sent
it to me, so you can refer to that.

Others receiving this reply have a choice:

The abovementioned attached .doc file that Dave sent me, at
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/emails/attachments/060908/heigl_2.doc

Or a scan of the actual letter I received, at
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/remine02-scan.htm

Or the html reconstruction of the letter, at
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/remine02-ltr.htm

All will note, please, Option #1, which is:

1 - Contest the charges in which case a hearing will be held in
Minnesota.

I assume, Dave, that you speak with authority with regard to the
Hearings Committee, that you carefully composed that 6/14/06 letter,
that you proofread it with regard to content, and that you both say what
you mean and mean what you say.

In my previous e-mail to you, I chose Option #1, which entitles me to a
"hearing to be held in Minnesota"; I have been preparing for an
appearance at a hearing in Minnesota, and I expect that there will in
fact be a hearing in Minnesota.

> Your failure to respond to that
> certified letter, delivered to your Mensa address of record (POB 177,
> Northfield, MN) at 4:22pm on June 19th, 2006; or the one of July 19th
> (also attached) also sent certified, return receipt to both your PO box
> and your home address (and which the USPS left notice of on July 24th,
> 2006 at both locations) can not be reasonably attributed to whatever
> envelope they were mailed in.

Yes, it can.

You seem to be an making effort to gloss over the fact that you have
been mailing out documents pertaining to official Mensa business without
using Mensa letterheads or Mensa envelopes.

I most certainly would have immediately opened and read any letter in an
envelope clearly identified as being from Mensa and addressed to me
personally. An envelope from *Some Guy* with my name and address
hand-scrawled on it is simply not going to attract attention under
any circumstances.

(Upon returning from a mid-summer vacation with my daughter, I found
Certified Mail notices in my P.O. box and the mailbox at my home
address. When I inquired at the post office, there were no letter(s)
there for me.)

> Any reasonable person does not dismiss
> Certified mail as junk nor throw it into a pile as you state, "other
> obviously essential envelopes extracted, and the rest has been going
> into a massive pile of stuff for me to wade through when I get some free
> time."

Reasonable people may do exactly that, when the envelopes have
hand-written addresses and no indication whatsoever that they have
anything to do with Mensa business.

In my lifetime, I have received at least one Certified letter which was
junk mail. This was quite a few years ago, and I don't recall the
specifics, but I believe that whatever they were hawking was costly
enough to justify using the Certified Mail designation to capture the
recipients' attention, or at least they were willing to try it.

Over the years, I have also received at least two Certified letters
which were from job-hunters. On reflection, all of your envelopes are
very reminiscent of what I occasionally receive from wide-eyed high
school graduates who want to tell me how much into music they are, and
do I have any intern or other positions open -- the return address
sticker, the handwritten address, and so forth.

> In point of fact certified mail should be classed as "the
> obviously essential" by anyone's definition.

Not at all. Certified mail may be considered as being classed as "the
obviously essential" by the *sender*, but not necessarily by the
recipient. All it says is that someone was curious about the
disposition of his mailing, and/or had some extra money available to
make the envelope look more impressive. (Check out all the hooey
printed on an envelope from Reader's Digest or Publisher's Clearing
House sometime to see to what extent someone will go to make junk mail
look like it's super-important.)

> Failing to open your mail,
> especially when clearly marked "Certified" or retrieve it when the USPS
> leaves notice of same does not relieve you of the responsibility to
> cooperate with the Hearings Committee in a timely manner nor does it buy
> you any extra time to submit evidence refuting the charges.

I can't "cooperate with the Hearings Committee in a timely manner" if I
have no idea what the Hearings Committee wants of me. The fact remains
that if you had properly used Mensa stationery to conduct Mensa
business, this situation would not have arisen.

> Certified
> mail is used to prove service upon a person which email does not do.

Not so. I occasionally get e-mails, spam unfortunately, that ask for a
"return receipt" -- as I write this reply to you, Netscape Messenger
gives me the option of checking an option box labeled "Return Receipt"
(although when I just tried it on a test message I get back a message
box saying "Your SMTP server does not support the return receipt
function so your message will be sent without the return receipt
request.) So much for EarthLink, but others support this function.

Contacting me by e-mail, in conjunction with what you were mailing,
would have gotten the message through very quickly and efficiently. I
always check e-mail at least daily or every other day, and I have
filters that would put anything with "Mensa" in the title or sender
fields, or in the body of the letter, automatically sorted into a folder
that would have captured my attention.

> We
> attempted to notify you of these serious charges being brought against
> you and to give you a chance to respond to same. It is through actions,
> or more exact "inaction", on your part that we have reached this point.

First, a definition of "this point" would be appreciated.

Second, your attempt to notify me was poorly done, and this was highly
contributory. (If these charges were so serious, why not use some
serious Mensa stationery in the first place?)

> We will not reward your inaction by further extending the already
> lengthy controversy between you and the local Mensa group.

I think that the controversy will be extended in any event. There are
further avenues of dispute "settlement and redress" as referenced, for
example, in Article IIID of the Mensa Constitution.

> However in a last attempt to be fair we will consider any evidence you
> care to submit to us in any form prior to the hearing, scheduled for
> 1:30 pm on September 16th, 2006.

I don't consider that to be particularly fair at all.

And we are to use a Ouija board to divine what time zone you are
referencing?

Please notify me of the time CDT, and the street address of the hearing
in Minnesota that I agreed to as Option #1 as contained in your letter
of 6/14/06.

> Only the members of the Hearings
> Committee will be on line for that hearing.

Excuse me again? You are announcing an intent to violate the Mensa
Constitution?

On my second monitor, I have up a .pdf file entitled the "LocSec
Handbook" which contains a copy of "AMERICAN MENSA BYLAWS".

(Article VIII relates to the American Mensa Ombudsman. A reasonable
person might form the opinion that the Hearings Committee should defer
to the Ombudsman until such time as he renders a result as described in
Article VIII (3) (h).)

However, what I am reading right now is Article IX (5) which states, in
part, that a member is entitled to "a fair and impartial hearing by the
Hearings Committee at which hearing the member shall have the right to
present his/her case."

I shall repeat: "... at which hearing the member shall have the right
to present his/her case."

(And it's not "during which hearing", it's "at which hearing", thus
conferring the right of attendance.)

Now, how do you expect to be in compliance with Article IX (5) when you
say that "Only the members of the Hearings Committee will be on line for
that hearing."

As I said above, you, acting on behalf of the Hearings Committee,
offered me the option of "Contest(ing) the charges in which case a
hearing will be held in Minnesota." which I accepted, thus enabling me
to exercise my right to present my case.

If you act so as to deprive me of the hearing in Minnesota, and instead
try to get by with an electronic hearing from which I am excluded, that
will be an automatic opening for me to file an appeal, as well as a
complaint of violation of the American Mensa Bylaws.

> Should you, or any party,
> wish to supply us with a phone number at which they can be reached
> between 1:30 and 3:00pm on that date in case we have any questions about
> the evidence submitted please do so.

My telephone number is 507-663-6090. My phone is attached to an
answering machine. The answering machine has a two-way record
function. I will be happy to ensure that there is an audio record and
transcription of any conversation regarding Mensa business, for any
future proceedings.

> Due to time constraints anything
> you intend for us to be considered should be sent directly to all three
> members of the Hearings Committee.

There is no rational need for any time constraints whatsoever. This is
not an emergency -- we don't have some guy buried in a Plexiglas tube
with a limited amount of oxygen and we have to act fast to get him out.

This is Mensa -- where things are supposed to be done intelligently
rather than expediently.

Dave, it's looking more and more like you've painted yourself, and the
Hearings Committee, in to not just one, but several untenable corners.

  You sent out documents of official Mensa business in envelopes bearing
  no Mensa identification.

  You offered me the option of a hearing in Minnesota which you
  apparently are willing to unilaterally withdraw.

  You have failed to ensure that I have the opportunity to see the
  charges against me, or the evidence, or a copy of the policies/rules.

  You are apparently planning on an electronic hearing from which you
  intend to exclude me and deprive me of my right to present my case, in
  direct violation of Article IX (5) of the American Mensa Bylaws.

This is some serious stuff here, and your "reasonable person" could read
these items and entertain the thought that this whole hearing thing is a
sham, and the pre-arranged game plan is to whitewash some of the past
and present leadership of Minnesota Mensa and excuse their wrongdoing
over the past four-plus years.

I suggest that we are running low on conditions favorable to having a
"fair and impartial" hearing at which I can exercise my right to present
my case.

I am willing to acknowledge a degree of responsibility for this, on the
assumption that you are willing to do the same.

I propose that we all back up just a few steps, take a breath, and see
if there isn't some middle ground.

To repeat, this is not an emergency issue. A reasonable postponement
does nobody any harm, and what could now appear as a "rush to judgment"
would look bad.

My assumption is that the Hearings Committee takes its role seriously,
and greatly prefers to have available all pertinent evidence as an
ingredient of a "fair and impartial" hearing as required by the American
Mensa Bylaws.

I might well be willing to waive some of my perceived rights, such as
the offered hearing in Minnesota (although I would really relish that),
in return for some mutual agreement on a schedule that would allow me to
feel that I have been able to provide the Hearings Committee with the
full story of what's really been going on in Minnesota Mensa over the
past four-plus years, and likewise provided you with the supporting
evidence, of which there is a lot.

We could discuss possible timelines, but I would like to see some
specific period in which I can provide the Hearings Committee with a
narrative, supporting evidence, and, separately, a response to the
charges.

Following that, a similar period during which the Hearings Committee
members, or anyone else involved in this, could e-mail me any specific
or general questions about the materials I have provided, in which case
I would respond promptly and offer any supporting evidence for my
response.

Finally, you can hold the actual hearing, but please note that I expect
to be present at that hearing, in whatever format it is held, as my
right to do so is specifically stated in Article IX (5) of the American
Mensa Bylaws.

I think that anybody reviewing all of this in the future would be
favorably impressed if we all were to agree to blow the whistle on
what's becoming a comedy of errors, regroup, and go forward in a
deliberate, measured manner that allows all of us to exercise our
various rights and responsibilities as embodied in the spirit and letter
of the Mensa Constitution and the American Mensa Bylaws.

Sincerely,

Al Heigl

Webmaster,
Minnesota Mensa

------------------------------------------------------

>
> Contact information for the members of the Hearings Committee is as follows:
> Chair, Dave Remine, 4 Gander lane, Manalapan, NJ 07726-4202
> Hearings@us.mensa.org
> Bob Beatty, 3755 Wenwood Dr., Hilliard, OH 43026-2489
> PastPastChairman@us.mensa.org
> Jean Becker, 2699 Jennifer Dr., Brighton, MI 48114-8938
> PastChairman@us.mens.org
>
> Your options at this point are:
> 1- not contest the charges and the Hearing Committee will decide
> whatever sanctions are appropiate
> 2 - send us evidence refuting the charges for our consideration
> 3- do nothing and await the outcome of the hearing.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dave Remine, Chair National Hearings Committee
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                 Name: Heigl charges.doc
>     Heigl charges.doc      Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
>                           Encoding: base64
>
>                       Name: Heigl 2.doc
>     Heigl 2.doc      Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
>                   Encoding: base64


--

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/