Change Nominating Committee to Search Committee (http://www.us.mensa.org/
This referendum would change the Nominating Committee into a Search Committee. All candidates for office would be required to submit petitions; there will be no candidates nominated by any committee (as is currently the case). There will be no candidates “recommended” or “endorsed” by any committee. The timeline is adjusted since there would no longer be an initial tier of nominated candidates and then an additional tier of petition candidates.
New Hearings Committee Procedure (http://www.us.mensa.org/
This referendum would overhaul the current procedure for a Hearings Committee. No member of the AMC would be a member of the Hearings Committee; it would now be composed of essentially-random members of American Mensa. Also, any sanction imposed by the Hearings Committee would require concurrence by the AMC. And if a member were to lapse membership or resign before the start of the hearing, the hearing process would stop, with the option to reinstate it if/when that member rejoins.
Recall Elections (http://www.us.mensa.org/
This referendum would institute a provision allowing a recall election of elected officers. Most local groups have such a provision, but there is currently no provision for the members of American Mensa to recall elected officers on the AMC.
Removal of Past Chairman from AMC (http://www.us.mensa.org/
This referendum would remove the Past Chair and the Past Past Chair of American Mensa from being members of the American Mensa Committee. The AMC would then comprise the five nationally elected officers, 10 regionally elected officers, and 4 appointed officers. (These positions are relics of a time when the institutional memory was not as easily accessible as it is nowadays. For them to also have a vote on the AMC, still, doesn't make much sense, as they are no longer elected, even though they are currently deemed as elective officers in the bylaws.)
RVC Replacement (http://www.us.mensa.org/
This referendum would correct a long-standing problem with the bylaws which don't currently have a legitimate way of replacing a vacancy in the position of Regional Vice-Chairman. (The provision that currently exists has been deemed invalid for over 4 years.) This proposal would institute a special election process whereby the members of the region would be able to elect a replacement RVC if the vacancy occurs during the first 15 months of the term.
"New Hearings Committee Procedure (http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=7)
ReplyDelete[A]ny sanction imposed by the Hearings Committee would require concurrence by the AMC."
As written the revision would have the rather absurd effect that nobody could be removed from a Mensa event for any reason without a formal hearing of the AMC first. Somebody could come to a monthly meeting stone drunk and start screaming at people, and throwing him out of the meeting would be a "sanction" and against the terms of the revised Bylaws.
This isn't some absurd extreme example. At least one disruptive member of the online forum has used that very clause of the Bylaws to argue that the moderators can't punish him in any way without a formal hearing for each incident. The response at the time was that the rule in the Bylaws only applies to suspending Mensa membership or expelling them from Mensa itself. Suddenly, this proposed rule change pops up immediately after that would specifically make it virtually impossible to enforce the forum's Terms Of Service.
I disagree with your example, as being thrown out of a specific event for unacceptable behavior they are currently engaging in is always within any host's purview, regardless of whether it is a host within their own home or even the extreme example of a host requesting that the public establishment remove the individual.
ReplyDeletePeople that use the Forum agree to abide by the terms of use of the Forum. If the moderators deem someone is violating those terms of use, they can implement whatever protocol is set up within those terms of use that the members have agreed to by partaking in the Forum. It has absolutely no bearing on this proposed bylaw.
As to the implication that there is any connection between the Forum example you raise and the proposed bylaw, there is absolutely zero connection. Your mention is the first I've heard of this situation at all; I rarely go into the Forum, and when I do, it's only into the Mensa Matters portion of it (which has been generally dead for weeks). As you may recall, I previously put forward a bylaws amendment proposal to change the hearings procedure in 2009 which fell a few dozen votes short of passage; my desire to change the current system is not new and has never been undertaken with any thought, even, to the Forum.
The reason it has always been in the host's purview is because it's written into the bylaws. Your amendment removes it, effectively allowing any action against a troublesome member to be interpreted as "sanctions."
DeleteExample: Mensan A holds an event in his home. Mensan B arrives, and cops a feel from Mensan C and then tries to pick a fight with Mensan D. Mensan A decides it's gone too far and asks Mensan B to leave.
Mensan B's response? "This is a Mensa event, and you're trying to impose sanctions on me. Any sanctions require a Hearings Committee, so you need to back up off of me and let me get my party on!"
Trust me, it's not as far fetched as you might think...
How it would most likely be interpreted:
Delete(5) A member may be suspended from specific activities... or functions... (collectively known as “sanctions”). No sanctions shall be imposed upon a member except following a fair and impartial hearing by the Hearings Committee.
Telling someone they can't attend or stay at an event falls under your collective known as "sanctions."
If the ExComm attempts to make some rule, or some "higher authority" attempts similarly, to prevent someone from going to future activities or functions, that would be within the realm of sanctions being talked about here.
DeleteAny individual host can kick someone out of their event for specific actions being undertaken at that event. Any individual can also tell anyone at any time that they are not welcome within their home. (State law trumps anyone's interpretations of bylaws.)
Where you have to be careful is not how you interpret a rule, but how somebody else might interpret it. You are changing the rule to define a "sanction" to include excluding a member from an event. Isn't kicking them out "excluding" them? Your proposed change would actively prohibit "excluding" (reasonably interpreted as including kicking them out) any member from any event without first having a formal hearing.
ReplyDeleteAs you disagree with this, let me ask your perspective then: What specific problem exists now that you believe this change will solve? Could a change of wording effect the same fix without risking unintended consequences?
No. Kicking somebody out of a current event because of inappropriate/bad behavior that they are currently engaging in is not excluding them. Telling them that their actions now will mean they are unwelcome at future events (even if they were to be behaving themselves at those future events) would be "excluding" them.
ReplyDeleteThis proposed change is to fix the problem of a poorly set up hearings system, most directly related to the fact that right now the AMC has two of the three members (by default, anyway) on the hearings committee, and then it is the AMC which has to concur with suspension/expulsion, where the Constitution of Mensa and International ASIEs require fair and impartial hearings as well as an avenue of appeal. Neither is reasonably possible in the current system.
As the petition has already been submitted for signatures, no change of wording is permitted. It must rise or fall on its own, now. (Were this being proposed at the ABM, then amendments to it would still be possible.)
What is the majority required for a successful recall? The Referendum does not state. That implies a simple majority, but then again, a recall could be 2/3 majority since it reverses a previous action.
ReplyDeleteSimple majority.
Delete