Though the officers of the American Mensa Committee (AMC) had privately, quietly discussed the issue of open or closed access to official officer e-lists (electronic lists) for more than a year, the topic became an intense debate when, in late June 2004, a related problem arose in American Mensa. A former local group webmaster verbally attacked his successor on the official Webmaster List, going so far as to set up his own competing chapter website. That problem was solved rapidly, but not before it came to light that the AMC Chairman had previously issued an instruction to the National Office to purge all officer e-mail lists of those not currently holding the specific local group office for which each individual e-list had been explicitly founded.

The National Office staff had implemented the Chairman's 2003 instruction: All members not currently holding the title relative to a particular list were unsubscribed — with two exceptions. Both the Editors' and Webmasters' Lists remained "open." The particular owner of both these lists opposed the Chairman's viewpoint and, in the absence of an ASIE, was able to skirt the verbal instruction.

The lists are for LocSecs, Editors, Gifted Children Coordinators, Membership Officers, PR Coordinators, Ombudsmen, Proctors, SIGHT Coordinators, Webmasters, and SIG Coordinators. A few of these lists have companion "talk lists" where non-official business between and among members takes place. Some lists are open to any member approved by the list owners; others are closed to those who aren't current or former officers.

With the problem about the Webmasters' List out in the open and the Chairman's insistence that the list owner immediately close both that list and the Editors' List, concerns were raised: Experienced ex-officers with Institutional Memory — knowledge of Mensa's regulations and how to get things done — had been removed from lists where they had helped "newbies." But there were also counterarguments:

"Mensa is always crying out for volunteers; but those who did volunteer and did serve, but aren't presently in office, are just dumped?"

An instance was cited wherein a past editor had given outdated (and thus incorrect) mailing information to list members. Another consideration against exclusive lists was that potential new officers, such as assistant LocSecs or others wanting to learn the ropes before taking office, would also be excluded. The counterargument to this was that letting "just anybody" in could lead to people with private agendas using the lists for their own purposes.

Communications Officer Tim Folks openly raised the issue at the July 2004 AMC meeting. He proposed a "sense vote" asking whether the AMC felt there was a need for a blanket policy limiting e-lists to current officers and those who need to be there for a particular reason. The vote was overwhelmingly against limitation. The AMC agreed that removing or retaining non-current officers is a decision best left to the person in charge of each e-list. Folks then brought a second sense vote to the table, and the AMC agreed that it would support moderation of e-lists — the right of a moderator to suspend or remove a list participant for behavior that was detrimental to the list's purpose or to other list members.

In order to gauge what path we should follow, LocSecs on their official list were asked for opinions. Twenty opted for inclusion of past LocSecs, four were opposed. On the subject of future or assistant LocSecs, four were in favor of and four against inclusion. These numbers suggest that the decision to purge all official e-lists and remove problem members had the unintended and unwanted consequence of throwing out valuable and desired experience as well — the proverbial baby went out with the bathwater.

The LocSecs' responses reinforce the common-sense notion that, while it wasn't smart for the list owners summarily to drop those not currently in office, it is sound practice for some lists to be closed to non-office-holders. Examples are the Ombudsmen's List, the Proctors', and the Gifted Children Coordinators' "Announcement" lists. These might well post information that needs to stay within a tight circle. The latter two groups also have "talk lists" for freer discussion.

There are mechanisms in place to ensure that e-lists don't grow each year as officers change. Between the National Office's contacting some list members annually and other procedures, Mensa does cull the lists of obsolete e-mail addresses and those list members no longer interested. But, by the Chairman's fiat, some of our lists have lost those who might be interested, might have something to contribute, but aren't going to act positively to be reinstated. How distressing is that — Mensa is always crying out for volunteers; but those who did volunteer and did serve, but aren't presently in office are just dumped?

Our members need to know about Tim Folks' courageous opposition to what was a hasty overreaction to a problem. They need both to contact their RVCs with appeals to urge all official Mensa list owners to invite and not restrict membership, and to request — or demand — that they be reinstated on any such list from which they have been exiled.

— Brian Bloch