linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/bylaws.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-02-19 | 6KB

From: "James J. Lippard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I visited the icr in p
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Sep 1992 17:48:04 -0700 (MST)
In article <[e-mail]>, you write...
>Reply-To: [e-mail]
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lee Thomas)
>wrote as follows:
>
>> Actually, we shouldn't be talking about anything but skepticism in
>> this newsgroup, and we should be doing that based on evidence, not
>> opinion.  THAT, however, would cut the volume of this group to
>> probably a tenth of its current volume.  (Wow - just imagine!)  If it
>> wasn't for the fact that several CSICOP members and other skeptics are
>> also involved in responding to creationism, this wouldn't come up here
>> at all.
>
>Lee, two matters:  (1) The only "members" of CSICOP in any meaningful
>sense of the term are its Executive Council members, and I don't believe
>any of them are up here.  Those are the only people who make and are
>responsible for CSICOP's policy decisions, and at least one notice in
>_Skeptical Inquirer_ has clarified that no one may speak for CSICOP
>unless so authorised by the Executive Council.  There is at least one
>CSICOP Fellow here (hi, Robert!), a subcommittee head or two, and
>probably a CSICOP Scientific or Technical Consultant, but these aren't
>"members" in any meaningful sense.
>
>This is an important point because of matters of legal liability.  Some
>parties hostile to CSICOP try actively to promote the idea that CSICOP
>is accountable for doings of Fellows and Consultants (it isn't), and
>even for doings of the independent local skeptics' groups (which it most
>certainly isn't), in order to expand its legal exposure.
>
>That leads me to the second point:  (2) I got into a long debate on
>CompuServe's Issues forum with one Richard Broughton, whom I assume to
>be the author of _Parapsychology: The Controversial Science_ (which I
>haven't found yet, but would like to read).  He was making quite a
>number of rather emotional charges about CSICOP's motives and nature --
>which I did not much dispute directly, although I did mock his
>protestations of scientific detachment.  However, he did make some
>claims of fact, which I DID dispute.  (My favourite was that _Fate_
>magazine refused to publish Philip J. Klass's "Crybaby" article in
>response to Rawlins's "sTARBABY" attack on CSICOP only because CSICOP's
>Executive Council hadn't endorsed Klass's response -- a quite wonderful
>non sequitur.)
>
>So, as part of his campaign, Broughton alleged that CSICOP was
>dishonest, etc., in maintaining that only Council members were "members
>of CSICOP" and could speak for it, etc.  I said this was incorrect, and
>gave specific references where _SI_ had addressed this matter, and so
>on.  Broghton dragged this on for quite a ways, then triumphantly hauled
>out what he said was a quotation from CSICOP's New York state by-laws,
>in which it says Fellows and Consultants are _non-voting_ members.  Come
>on, Broughton, I said.  Non-voting means no voice in CSICOP's decisions
>and no responsibility for its actions, and cannot be called "membership"
>in any meaningful sense of the term.  Predictably, he ignored this
>point, selectively omitted that part of my message in his reply, and
>claimed that membership is membership.
>
>Anyway, does anybody happen to have a copy of CSICOP's by-laws, other
>than Richard Broughton, Robert McConnell, and other veteran
>CSICOP-bashing propagandists?  I would like to check on whether the
>wording is as Broughton claims, irrespective of the conclusions
>Broughton and such like draw from it.

Here are the first three articles of the CSICOP By-Laws:

BY LAWS OF CSICOP, INC.

ARTICLE I - NAME

The name of the Corporation shall be CSICOP, INC., an acronym for the
"Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal",
hereinafter referred to as "The Committee."

ARTICLE II - OFFICE

The principal office of the Committee is located in the greater Buffalo
area.  The books and records of the Committee shall be kept at its
principal office.

ARTICLE III - PURPOSE

The purposes of the Committee are:
(1) To establish a network of people interested in examining claims of the
paranormal, and to make the results of their work known to the broader
public through various media sources.
(2) To prepare bibliographies of published materials that carefully
examine such claims.
(3) To encourage and commission research by objective and impartial
inquirers in areas where it is needed.
(4) To convene conferences and meetings.
(5) To publish articles, monographs, and boks that examine claims of
the paranormal.
(6) To not reject on _a priori_ grounds, antecedent to inquiry, any or all
such claims, but rather to examine them openly, completely, objectively,
and carefully.

ARTICLE IV - MEMBERS AND MEMBERSHIP

The membership of the Committee shall exist of two classs:  voting
members and regular members.
(1) _Voting Members_
   (a) The Board of Directors shall have voting powers with respect to
administrative and financial matters.  [This, btw, is Kurtz, Nisbett,
Alcock, and Frazier--a fact not listed in SI. -jjl]
   (b) The Executive Council of the Committee shall have voting power
with respect to formulating the policies of the Committee and selecting
the Editor of _The Skeptical Inquirer_, the Fellows, and Scientific
Consultants.  Each member of the Council shall have one vote at any
meeting of the members.
(2) _Regular Members_ - Regular members of the Committee without vote are:
   (a) All persons designated as "Fellows of the Committee."
   (b) Scientific Consultants - members with expertise in specialized
areas.

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721