This all happened a year ago, but the topic has been brought up on M-Pol recently, so I thought I'd make sure my side of the events is available to anyone who cares.
Bill was the Editor of
ChiMe for a year. He did an okay job, and the group appreciated his contribution. I spent hours and hours with him, training him on software and fixing ads and photos so they would work well for him. We got along well, I thought. He was a nice fellow.
Then, in about December or January, it was decided to review and update the groups Publications Policies, and to incorporate all the ASIEs and Bylaw pieces into one grand document. I was the Publications Officer at the time, so I did just that. Bill approved of some pieces and not of others. We went back and forth a few times, and some of his suggestions were included; some were not.
In January, I presented the Board with my recommended Pubs Policy and Bill presented them with his preferences.
The policy that was approved by the Board of Directors was not the version Bill preferred. And then all hell broke loose.
Butting Heads With Ensconced OfficersBill wrote that "I RESIGNED from
ChiMe because I no longer wished to have everything I tried to do to improve the newsletter, countered by your actions" but he has still never told me what actions he has a problem with or what improvements he was prevented from implementing. He complains that the Publications Policy passed by the Board in January contains “99% of Robin’s work.” That’s a lie. Not only are there pieces in there that Bill specifically wanted included or edited a certain way, but most of it is simply a prepackaging of bylaws or previous ASIEs—that I didn’t write.
Interestingly, Bill never stated which things in that final version of the policy he is unable or unwilling to abide by. He expresses anger that the policy was passed by the Board when he was not in attendance… never noting that I was not in attendance, either. I presented the Board with my opinions in advance. Bill presented his views in advance. The Board made the final decision, incorporating some of my preferences and some of Bill’s preferences, and neither Bill nor I were there to influence their discussion.
I recall that one bone of contention during preliminary discussions was a disclaimer, originally saying “Opinions expressed herein are those of the editor and contributors. Mensa has no Opinions.” (This was the wording that had been used continuously in the submission guidelines since long before I even joined Mensa.)
I wanted to update it to “Opinions expressed herein are those of the editor, Webmaster, and contributors. Mensa has no Opinions.” (I just added the bit about the Webmaster to reflect the modern era.)
Bill wanted it to say “Opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors and do not reflect those of any CAM officer,
ChiMe staff member, the Webmaster or any official Mensa body.” (He felt very strongly that the editor should not be on the hook for the opinions of the writers.)
Which version made it into the final policy passed in January? “Opinions expressed in
ChiMe and online publications are those only of the contributors. Mensa has no opinions." It was a pretty good compromise, and one that was suggested by Bill, not me.
However, Bill printed his original preferred version in the March issue, (which was created in early February and after the passage of the new policy). No one noticed that he had willfully flouted the policy set by the Board of Directors.
Then, in late February, Beth Anne, the LocSec, sent him notice about updating the Submissions Guidelines—she mentioned nothing about his incorrectly worded disclaimer, but only gave some updates about the advertising information. At this, Bill blew up, and announced his resignation. In the April
ChiMe, he printed the approved disclaimer wording, adding “amended by Beth Anne Demeter and Robin Crawford in March 2007.”
WTF? Not only did I not amend the submission guidelines in March, nor in February, but I didn’t even write the version that was put into the pubs policy! Bill printed a lie in the April
ChiMe.
Chicago Area Mensa elections are held at the end of April. Beth Anne was running for LocSec. I was not running for anything.
Bill included a full page ad in the April issue of the newsletter-- without having shown it to the Pubs Officer or proofreader--blasting the current administration and announcing that he was running for LocSec. Chicago Area Mensa Bylaws specifically forbid the Editor (and Pubs Officer and Webmaster) from running for election.)
The Order of EventsIn addition to spreading his venom within our Local Group, Bill expanded his scope and posted on the national Editors elist, where of course they had a field day crucifying me without bothering to look for facts.
Bill posted to the national list:
>I didn't have any intention to stay in Mensa or run until I received an email from Robin, before the printer got the newsletter,
in which she gave me "notice of termination" as Editor. That was after I announced my resignation and pissed me off. Thus the ad and the editor's notation.<That is a lie. Bill received my email AFTER he placed the ad in the newsletter, AFTER he broke the bylaws, AFTER he printed his editor's column, AFTER he asserted that he was editor until the end of March, AFTER ChiMe was printed.
On March 1, Bill announced that he was resigning and that he would do the April
ChiMe.On March 6, Bill emailed me saying:
>By the way, I don't appreciate you removing me from the editors' list. After all, I am still editor until the end of this month and still a member of Mensa and CAM until then.<I replied that I hadn't removed him from the editors list and that I was not the administrator of that list (it's since been revealed that there were problems with many elists and members who use yahoo for their email). This email did, however, indicate that, as of March 6, Bill believed his editorship to run until March 31.
On March 9, I contacted the printer and confirmed that the April issue was delivered and that the printed had begun.
On March 14, after consulting with our Ombudsman, I (in my role as Chicago's Pubs Officer) sent Bill notice that his appointment was terminated, carefully using the precise language from our bylaws ("The Publications Officer shall appoint such editors, associate editors, Webmasters, managers, and assistants as needed, and may terminate such appointments as deemed necessary."). I figured this needed to be made crystal clear, since, as I quoted above, he had earlier told me that he considered himself to be editor until the end of the month. This cleared the way for us to appoint a new editor in time for the May issue.
I did not consider if the timing made Bill more or less eligible to run for office. We have an Elections Procedure Committee for that. My job was to do what I felt was necessary to make the newsletter happen.
Addressing the Complaints in Bill's ScreedRobin’s Grip on the GroupAs for this “too much say” I have in the group... my formal role was that of Publications Officer, and as such I was “Responsible for the publication and distribution of the local group newsletter and/or activities bulletin. The Publications Officer shall appoint such editors, associate editors, Webmasters, managers, and assistants as needed, and may terminate such appointments as deemed necessary." [Bylaws III 3. E. 1]. I suspect this is what Bill disliked: that anyone had authority over him and his product. In fact, he wrote, to the Steering Committee elist on March 1: “I have never been a follower, never worked for anyone but myself.”
So maybe my sin was simply being the group’s Pubs Officer. Ironically, in February I gave the board notice of my resignation as Pubs officer (for reasons having nothing to do with Bill) effective as soon as they can find someone else to do the job. So even before Bill pitched his hissy fit in March and April, I had already started to pull out of any official roles.
Perhaps he’s referring to an intangible influence-by-virtue-of-respect that others like Jay, Helen, Stacey, Cindy, and Conrad have in the group. If that’s my great failing, then I’m honored to have such good company.
A Second Printed LieIn his ad in the April
ChiMe, Bill stated that “there has been nothing reported
about their [WeeM’s, AGOG’s, or Colloquium’s] attendance or their profit or loss. (I know it’s too early for a financial report on Colloquium, but how about attendance?)” and then, just two pages later, he printed minutes which contained attendance figures for Colloquium and general information about WeeM’s success. In the February 2006
ChiMe, the Treasurer’s Report clearly lists WeeM income and expenses. Yes, we’re due for another such report, but it sure looks to me like there has been more than nothing reported. Bill printed a lie about the amount of events’ information reported to the membership.
Helping the CommunityIn print and online, Bill has repeatedly implied that Mensans don’t do anything for society. He has not acknowledged the $40,000 we’ve raised for scholarships, the blood drives we’ve done, the toys we’ve collected, the books we’ve donated, or the gifted children resource fairs we’ve participated in. He seems to have overlooked the reports of the Community Activities Program Chair describing the school supply drive last August and the canned food drive at WeeM, and organizing participation in “relay for Life” 5-K runs. He forgot about the full page ad John Massura ran in the July
ChiMe asking for support for his 60-mile walk for Breast Cancer.
Perhaps those things don’t count. In the April
ChiMe there was an article by CAM member Dave Lloyd seeking Mensans’ help to save Shakespeare’s church, but perhaps Bill didn’t read everything he when he edited that issue.
For all his passion about how Mensa should DO something for humanity, all Bill did to further that goal is… tell us that we should be doing something. He has not yet placed a notice saying “Join me on Tuesday the 28th at the VA Hospital on Main Street to visit the service men and women there” or “Here is the box for you to place your old eyeglasses in; I’ll take them to the Kiwanis next Saturday.”
More Membership ParticipationHe complained that only a few take an active role; that we need new blood on the Board. On the current Board, there were two wonderful young ladies who had never held any role in CAM before. In fact, Marina had only joined just a few months before she was nominated for an elected office, at age 23. How much newer did Bill want the blood to be?
That year, Bill ignored the fact that 3/5 of the candidates on the ballot had never been on the Board before; he ignored the fact that there are 43 different people listed in the April
ChiMe as people who do things in the group. Our Steering Committee is larger than some groups’ entire memberships! There are another 15 or so listed in the April
ChiMe as hosting an event or writing an article. Now add in the proctors and the legions who help at HalloweeM. Most Local Groups complain that only 10% of its members ever show up to anything. Our wonderful Local Group can boast nearly 5% ACTIVELY INVOLVED and leading. And this is why Chicago Area Mensa is the envy of the rest of the Mensa community.
The Election Committee determined that Bill was not eligible to run for LocSec. Bill accused them of being in the power grip of the entrenched officers, namely BethAnne and myself.
When Bill took his cause to the Local Group elist, he was otraged to find that everyone, including the copy editor he worked with and even the previous editor, who had no particular love for me, turned against him. Bill fussed and fumed and threatened to sue. He said he'd quit Mensa and leave us alone if we gave him money. And eventually, someone did some googling about Bill's Literary Agent buisness and turned up some very ugly facts. And then published the URL on the list.
At that, Bill became very quiet and resigned from Mensa.
Bill stated that he was running in order to "Bring about Good Things."As for the election situation and the interpretation of the bylaws-- I was not on the elections procedure committee, so I was not part of that decision.
But I do know that ignoring bylaws and Board policies, printing lies, berating the membership for not living up to his expectations, threatening legal action, attempting extortion, and making baseless complaints are not the types of behaviors that bring about good things for a group.
Bill served our group well for a year and did a good job as editor of
ChiMe, which requires an enormous amount of time and loving care. We all appreciate it. It is a shame that those positive contributions will not be what he is ultimately remembered for.
