Lack of courtesy in prolonged delay in replying

Sometimes "life" gets in the way of sending a reply to an e-mail. I certainly get that, and never *expect* an immediate reply to an e-mail I am initiating (though I'm always pleased to get them). A few days, and even a week at times, are totally reasonable amounts of time in which to respond to something. (And if one is out of contact for a long amount of time on vacation or somesuch, then it is appropriate to either give forewarning of same when that is possible or lead off with an acknowledgement of that when one finally gets back online and is replying to e-mail. Obviously if a dire emergency has intervened, it may take a considerable amount of time for some reflection of that to wind its way to people making inquiries on various topics.) Multiple weeks, let alone a month, without replying to any extent comes across as an avoidance tactic, especially when there are multiple people on the e-mail and no one replies.


As many may know, Barry Levine (no relation) was expelled from AML in 2008. Recently, he appealed that decision to the International Board of Directors (IBD) for the one thing they could offer him - Direct International Membership (DIM) status. He posted his official request on M-Pol and has provided brief (believe it or not) updates about how long it has been since he last inquired about the status.

Eventually, I wrote to a source (who I have promised, so far, not to identify and who is listed as [X] below) asking for the status of the decision. A full month after being informed that a decision has actually been reached (and I have no idea when that decision was made), that decision has not been conveyed to Barry nor to AML writ large. Nor has a simple explanation been provided as to what the extensive delay in conveying the decision is.

The below letter, I think, speaks for itself from this point on.

----

[X] and Ms. Rudolph,

I am flummoxed by the rather thorough lack of communication that seems to be occurring with respect to this situation. 5 weeks ago, I inquired about the status of Barry Levine's appeal to IBD. In what I thought was a reasonable amount of time (one week, especially since my e-mail was sent via the MIL website), [X] sent a reply indicating that a decision had been reached, but had not as yet been conveyed to Barry.

It seemed likely to me that a decent chunk of the posts I would read upon my return from a 2-week vacation would have been related to Barry's forwarding on whatever the decision was since, surely, he would have received that decision sometime during my time away. However, quite obviously, such was not the case. 

And still, 2 weeks further hence (a total of one month since the time you mentioned the fact that a decision HAD actually been reached, and an unstated amount of time since that decision was reached) there has not been any communication with Barry from IBD regarding this matter, nor have either of you responded to my simple query (in the thread backquoted below) as to what the delay is. While I am keenly interested in why it should take such a long time to inform the central party to this matter what the final resolution is, and am disappointed that neither of you appear to want to answer such, that is of lesser concern than making sure that the actual decision is finally conveyed.

This is hardly something that affects only Barry. Rather, it affects all of AML and, I dare say, all of MIL. The underlying matter is the fairness of AML's hearings process. Does IBD think that Barry, via the process that AML has in place and as applied to him with respect to his 2008 expulsion from AML, was treated to a fair and impartial hearing? If not, then IBD should do the one thing that it has at its disposal and offer him DIM status. This would be a clear signal to all of AML as well as the other national Mensas that MIL will take what action it can to ensure fairness within our respective hearings systems and would hopefully serve as a clarion signal to AML that reform of our system needs to be implemented.

If the IBD thinks that Barry was treated fairly, then it should not waver in stating so. In such an instance, this sort of delay is mind-boggling.

Regardless of what the IBD has already decided, Barry (as the petitioner), AML members (as the Mensan party with the highest vested interest), and MIL members writ large deserve to know what the decision was. If there is a particular technicality or legality that is holding up the process of disseminating that information, then it is a matter of simple propriety and courtesy that demands a basic explanation of same and an expected time by which we can expect to have the final decision rendered in its final form.

Ms. Rudolph, as AMC Chairman and a member of the International ExComm, I would appreciate it if you would do what you can to move this process along. I would also appreciate it if you would provide your understanding as to why there has been such a long delay (clearly over one month) in communicating the final decision of IBD in this matter (even if you aren't empowered to be the one to relay the actual decision itself).

Thank you, both. I look forward to your replies as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Jared Levine

LocSec, Metropolitan Washington Mensa

Candidate for AMC Secretary