Any set of governing rules, from the Constitution of the United States to the Bylaws of American Mensa, Ltd., is a living, breathing document. While it is as perfect as it can be made at the time of its creation, changing times call for changes in the document. This leads inevitably to the amendment process. Some changes are adopted, becoming as much part of the document as the original words; others are rejected, either languishing in obscurity or reworked to gain possible future acceptance. But changes, adopted or not, are inevitable.
In Mensa, we have seen with the passing of years the amendment process being used not sparingly but with increasing frequency. Not only are new amendments being sent out for member approval, but also amendments to the amendments are starting to appear regularly. While amendment is good and necessary, constant amendment is not, for several reasons.
Constant amendment is haphazard. It is an obvious example of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. When used in relation to events occurring in the recent past, the amendment process is an extreme reaction to a situation that might better be handled by a well-debated and well-crafted ASIE.
Constant amendment numbs the voting membership. Familiarity breeds contempt, and the vote counts for recent amendment referenda show a dismayingly small fraction of the membership concerned with changes to what is our fundamental set of governing rules. With amendments to the bylaws being voted upon by fewer and fewer members, the organization runs the risk of being run under rules set by a tiny and vocal minority.
Constant amendment fails to see a larger picture. The volume and frequency of amendment referenda focuses attention on the immediate situation, distracting members from taking into consideration the bylaws as a whole, seeing how its pieces fit together and how the bylaws themselves fit with other AML/MIL governing documents.
Constant amendment creates an ugly image. A set of governing rules gives a sort of physical clothing to the ideas upon which the society is founded. Under this analogy, amendments are like patches to that clothing — necessary to keep the fabric intact, but changing the look of the item. And while there is a beauty to a patchwork quilt, it is not a beauty of chaos but rather the beauty of the pattern, formed from seemingly random elements, yet representing a guiding idea behind the work.
How can one get around the pitfalls of constant amendment? One way is to amend everything at once — a complete overhaul of the bylaws. This is not without precedent. Taking an example from American history, the Articles of Confederation were amended in the late 1700s with the adoption of the Constitution, completely replacing the former document with the latter.
Complete overhaul allows for a reexamination of the ideals of American Mensa and for a recasting of the words clothing those ideals. By its nature, it forces the membership to consider the larger picture, working proactively to produce the best document possible for the time rather than working reactively in response to current events. And since it is rare, uncommon, even historic to rework such a document completely, it energizes the membership instead of numbing them, with increased member participation as an expected side effect.
Amendment will always be necessary, as sets of governing rules are living things, and no such set of rules is perfect either at its creation or for all time. But when an organization finds itself constantly amending its bylaws, it is a clear signal that the time has come to stop the constant amendment and start the work that will lead to a complete replacement of the bylaws.