Motion about LG ExComms being able to bar members from local events
5. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded ________, that the governing board of any local group, by a unanimous vote, may bar any member from attending specific events (except governing board meetings) for a period of up to three months. The Executive Committee shall first notify in writing its RVC and the member of its intention to disbar such member, and must list specific alleged behavior, times, dates and witnesses. The RVC may disallow such barring. Three or more such disbarments should be considered reason to hold a Regional Hearing.
Explanation: we have certain problem members whose presence at events causes more normal members to not attend events or even quit Mensa. Although we celebrate diversity, we should no tolerate gropers or other misfits.
Financial impact: none, except a possible future regional hearing.
Further Explanation: Problem Members have existed since Mensa began. This is evidenced by the many workshops we have had on problems members at each AG. I gave one myself eons ago, and Dave Remine is giving them now. Each local group can give anecdotes about how problem members have caused more sane members from attending events or volunteering. Such problem members quickly drive away new members (hurting recruitment and retention), give LocSecs a headache, expose us to unfavorable publicity.
Robin’s thoughts:
I agree 100% that LGs should be able to bar toxic members from local events, except for board meetings. However, we wrangled with this just a year ago, in a different format. And back then, we came to the conclusion that there is already plenty of policy (ASIE 0000-111)—local leaders just need to stand up and say “No more!”
As a recap, ASIE 0000-111 says: “…Hosts or hostesses for any other activities, such as SIGs, open houses, parties, SIGHT visits, or any other activities which are not official functions, may invite or exclude individuals, including Mensa members at his/her discretion. Even at official functions a member may be evicted for specific unacceptable behavior.
“In order to promote safety, security, and a full sense of enjoyment of any Mensa activity, whether at an AG, an RG, a Local Group meeting, an event in a public venue, or a private house party, or a SIG event or a SIGHT visit, the organizers of the event have the responsibility and duty to attempt to control an offending party. This control can take the nature of asking the offending party to leave, and failing that, to request appropriate assistance in removing the offending party from the event. Whenever a member or the guest of a member is asked to leave or is removed from an event, a written report of the reason(s) and the action(s) taken may be sent to the RVC in whose jurisdiction the event took place….”
I fully support the message in this motion, but I do not support the motion, since we already have an adequately empowering tool for LGs in our governing documents. Local leaders and RVCs just need to be more aware that they really, truly, CAN bounce jerks from Mensa events. And, frankly, it would probably improve the Mensa experience for more members if such decisive actions were taken.
5 comments:
Another instance where we need to communicate information, rather than resorting to legislation. We have the provision to accomplish what this motion aims for; we don't need to pass another ASIE that will be ignored.
Also, if I'm hosting an event, I'll be a monkey's uncle if my ExComm is going to tell me who I can and cannot invite.
The problem with current policy is that members cannot be barred from attending public venue events such as lunches and dinners. In my own group, we have already had several events that disbanded becausethe actions of one person has caused "normal" members to not attend. That is not unusual in our local groups.
Where's the due process? Just informing the alleged offender is not sufficient. At a minimum, the right of reply must be extended.
Yes, a host may exclude a problem member from the event being hosted. I would say that at public events, the host of that event would have the power to so exclude. If an adjustment to an ASIE is necessary to make this clear, so be it, although I would think that local groups could adopt such clarification on their own if they think it necessary.
I would think it would be even easier to exclude someone at a public event. The host need not even deal with it personally, but instead simply tell the restaurant staff "no, that person is not with my party and is not welcome at my table".
Another anonymous poster posted:
"The problem with current policy is that members cannot be barred from attending public venue events such as lunches and dinners."
This is not correct. No restaurant/bar/etc. that wants the group's business wants to force someone unwanted to be imposed on you. With the possible exception of a place like Benihana, each party gets its own table. If you have someone present you don't want around, let the restaurant management know--most likely, they'll ask the person to leave (and, if they don't, you should probably look for a different restaurant to meet at!).
Post a Comment