The Road to Hurst is Paved with Potholes
Matt Crawford
Just seven months ago, I was heading into my term on the AMC as your RVC. In all, eight of the ten RVCs were brand-new to the board. Though I had met three of them before, I discovered quickly that most of us “freshmen” shared a few core values: a desire to take stand against bullying, a drive to increase accountability, and an aspiration to open the curtains on what we consider the AMC’s pervasive veil of secrecy.
We knew this wouldn’t be an easy road to walk. There has been a significant lack of transparency for a long time and, as you’ll recall, we took office on the heels of a dues increase that was justified in no other way than keeping up with inflation. Almost immediately, we started to painfully discover what we were up against. Disparaging comments conspiring against our freshman class were made behind the curtains by some of the continuing AMC members a month before we even got in the door. This went on in full view of the Chair, who apparently did nothing about it.
We immediately found ourselves in a climate unabashedly resistant to change and to member involvement. As an example, I found that our orientation materials contained an incorrect statement concerning vote tabulation. When I brought this up, the now-former Executive Director doubled down on it. I persisted. Only after consulting legal counsel did he back down and allow the process to be fixed. I reviewed old minutes and found several votes that would have come out the opposite way if abstentions and absences had been correctly understood. This error almost certainly would have continued had I not stood my ground. For another example, there was great resistance to preserving the officer involvement in budgeting that was specified in the ASIEs, but had been ignored for years.
A sampling of other things we learned of during our brief six months on the AMC includes a $450 dinner for three charged to Mensa, contracts signed with no authorizing vote recorded in any minutes, and a number of factually inaccurate statements by the Chair in open and closed sessions. And we brought to light one long-standing and ongoing violation of law. (After persisting through more inaccurate and contradictory statements we did get it acknowledged and corrected. I am fairly certain no member has been adversely affected by it.)
I am able to write of the foregoing issues because none of them was in the hearing of January 11. We ten representatives and officers were. The correlation is compelling, but I can make no provable claim of causation.
But you want to read about the hearing. We ten can’t tell you of the hearing, really, because there are still more penalties they could impose for such revelations. However, I can assemble some hearing-adjacent facts.
First, you have not seen the Hearings Committee’s decision. That decision is secret, and it’s much longer than the summary that was put about. I wish you could read it, for reasons that would probably be risky for me to tell. The summary of it, which has been widely circulated, seems crafted for maximum reputational impact.
Let me say a few things about the American Mensa hearings process. Until December, Complainants had an enormous advantage over Respondents in all hearings: A Complainant could prepare their complaint without restriction on communicating with others, because there was no hearing in process yet, so no rule of confidentiality. Once the Respondents are informed of charges, there is a hearings process under way and they could not speak of it. This precluded even telling a Respondent’s witness what the subject of their testimony was to be. If that sounds absurd to you, you aren’t alone, but the Hearings chair, questioned directly about it, did not disagree. Since December 26 (Motion B on the agenda), the confidentiality rules may no longer be construed to impede parties to hearings from preparing their cases.
According to Mensa International Bylaws 13.3, “Every national Mensa must ensure that a fair and reasonable independent internal discipline procedure is in place. This procedure must include an independent appeals procedure.” We have no appeals procedure , independent or otherwise. And when the parties to a hearing are AMC members, or recent AMC members, it’s very hard to call what hearings process we do have “independent,” since the hearings committee consists of the three most recent AMC chairs.
And how is it that an independent appeals process is mandatory, but we don’t have one? I don’t know the full answer, but I do know that Mensa International has an International Standards Committee that is “tasked with monitoring compliance with international requirements for national Mensas as prescribed in the International Constitution and in IBD actions.” (MIL Bylaws 6,4) The current chair of that committee is a member of AML’s Hearings Committee and one supposes she finds her work much more comfortable knowing there is no appeal or review.
Another fact worth noting is that the Hearings Committee itself routinely ignores the communication requirement of Hearings bylaw IX(5)(b). They put the blame on the AMC chair for that, which I think is questionable. Wherever the responsibility lies, this had a significant impact on this case, since the few AMC members not involved in this hearing process had no idea what was being done to the majority, or why.
The AMC cannot change bylaws, and neither can the Hearings Committee. Only the members can, and the lack of an appeals procedure is a bylaws defect. In December we tried to put on the best band-aid we could, which would have been to apply the AMC review to every hearing. We were shouted down with many factually incorrect claims about international and AML bylaws. Then we tried to pull back the veil of secrecy and were shouted down with misleading claims about law. You can replay this all on the recording, but I don’t wish the experience on you.
What about the decision, or rather the report, that we all can read? It says the ten “violated the Bylaws,” but does not say how. The open portion of the meeting contained nothing untoward. Many have concluded that the alleged violation must have occurred during the prior executive session. As we all know, any actions or votes in executive session are reported out by the Secretary immediately afterward. The only items so reported were the appointments of a Mind Games Chair and an Elections Committee. And the violation doesn’t seem to be any votes taken, else why were two non-voting officers condemned along with the rest? Since there was no recording, and note-taking is forbidden, it all comes down to the word of the powerful against the word of the new kids.
The bottom line is we did not violate any bylaws, but to show the gaping holes in the Hearings Committee’s argument would break confidentiality. And then we would be violating bylaws. Catch-98.