There is a clearly defined procedure detailed in the Constitution, the Bylaws and standing motions of the AMC for expulsion of a member who commits an act or acts "inimical to Mensa." The procedure entails a formal hearing by a National Hearings Committee. A recent case involved one Frank Repp, a member of the Atlanta group, who was charged with Acts Inimical and who was scheduled for a hearing in early September. Before the hearing got underway, however, Mr. Repp resigned from Mensa and the hearing was discontinued. The AMC, then fearful that Mr. Repp might rejoin and cause more trouble, passed a simple motion (contrary to the relevant Bylaws) to the effect that a member facing charges would not be allowed to resign until the charges were heard. When a motion by RVC Dan Wilterding to rescind this illegal motion was introduced at the next AMC meeting, the Wilterding rescission was voted down by approval of a substitute motion that said essentially the same thing as the original illegitimate action.

In the meantime, the AMC had decided to reconvene the suspended hearing and pursue it even in the absence of Mr. Repp, who believed himself to be resigned. From this point forward, nearly all the hearing rules and procedures were flagrantly ignored. The Bylaws themselves were thus violated, as they state unequivocally that a hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the rules. Some of the stipulated rules and procedures that were violated are as follows:

1) Conduct of hearings by face-to-face meetings rather than "electronic
    communications" as used in this instance
2) Specified advance notice of the exact date and location of the hearing
3) Tape recording of the entire proceedings
4) The right of any Mensa member to be present
5) A prompt written report to the AMC on the findings of the Hearings Committee

On the 20^th of October, I sent the following message to AMC Chairman, Dr. Jean Becker: 

Dear Jean:

I am utterly appalled by and ashamed of the AMC's actions in regard to the Repp matter. In my 29 years as an active Mensa member, including two terms as RVC6, I have never seen such blatant disregard for legality and propriety. I can understand a possible mistake in passing a motion contrary to the Bylaws, but absolutely cannot understand, condone or accept a refusal to rescind such an action. 

In a matter as grave as a hearing, I find it incomprehensible that established rules and procedures not be followed to the letter. The AMC as a whole, in this matter, has acted far more like a lynch mob than an intelligent, responsible entity.

The membership is unequivocally owed, just for openers, an abject and meaningful apology. We are also owed such actions as are possible to correct the errors at this point and avoid any future repetition.

--Don Hawkins--

To: Ombudsman@us.mensa.org 

Subject: Illegal AMC actions

I am outraged by the actions of the AMC in dealing with the Repp matter. We have Bylaws, which can be legally modified (amended) only by prescribed procedure and 2/3 member approval. Yet, the AMC passed a simple motion contrary to the Bylaws and then refused to rescind it!

There are also specific rules, promulgated by the AMC itself as ASIEs, pertaining to the procedure for a hearing. These were not followed by the Hearings Committee, though the AMC could have modified these rules by majority vote if it had concerned itself in the least with propriety.

Taking first things first, the Bylaws change needs immediately to be declared null and void, with whatever fallout that produces. Presumably, the whole Hearings procedure may therefore have been invalid, but the bad guy has quit Mensa anyway.

I would hope that you, as Ombudsman, could find prompt remedies for the erroneous actions. The members should not have to even consider spending money on legal action to compel its board of directors to follow the rules.

Sincerely,
--Don Hawkins --

[Additionally, (Bylaws) Section IX(6)(c) states:] …The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with rules and procedures promulgated by the American Mensa Committee.

In the past couple of weeks, I've learned more details about what transpired, and have reached these conclusions: "Punishing" a troublemaker who had threatened to sue, and who had committed the unpardonable sin of verbally abusing a respected member of the AMC, was seen as warranting absolutely any extra-legal action the AMC might see fit to take. The actions taken were not the result of rational discourse (in Mensa?!) or any consideration of propriety (by our stewards on the AMC?!), but of emotional appeals aimed (by intent!) at bypassing the rules.

—Don Hawkins
P.O. Box 31158
Houston, TX 77231