From: Harvey Heagy 
Subject: Re: Why the NFB
I think that while the sentiments expressed sound nice, it
reflects the old agency, "You can capture more flies with honey
than with vinegar," argument.  We support this organization with
our finances and efforts.  In return, we should have meaningful
input into policy making decisions; not just a dog and pony show.
In 1990 when the overwhelming sentiment of the convention was not
to return to the Hyatt-regency D.F.W. in 1993 our feelings were
ignored and it
was done anyway.  Now had the same people who spoke out at the
convention in an overwhelming, "No," voice vote stayed away from
the Hyatt-regency D.F.W. in 1993, it is quite possible we would
not be going back there this year as the national leadership would
have had no choice but to take a closer look at it.  But the sheep
followed, and the national cop-outs came that there never was a
roll call of the states or a vote of the delegates and therefore
the voice vote was not binding.
I have heard of people who have had to fight like crazy to get a
refund on a defective aid or appliance purchased from the N.F.B.
The implication is that we should absorb the cost for the sake of
the movement.
And that N.F.B. pledge now included at the end of each issue of
"The Braille Monitor," is a very subtle reminder that we are to
unconditionally support the national leadership if we expect to
get anywhere in or get help from this organization.
It says to the membership that there are 2 sets of standards, one
for the rank and file and one for the national leadership.  If a
decision or section of the constitution favors the national
leadership it is followed to the letter; if it doesn't it is
thrown out the window as though it doesn't
exist.
If Nac had engaged in either of these practices
our leadership would be all over them like fleas on a dog's back.
Shouldn't our organization conform to the same standards it
expects of others?  If we have to support organizational
decisions whether we agree with them or not, shouldn't the
national board of directors be required to implement decisions made
by the organization regardless of their personal opinions
and yes, even if they may be incorrect?
During the Vietnam war, most of those who opposed it loved
America but felt we were wrong in this instance.  Sure there were
those who abused the Conscientious Objector status and who had
personal agendas to further and who went to Hanoi and gave aid
and comfort to the enemy our current President included, but most
who opposed the war effort were legitimately opposed to it.  So if
we disagree
with the national leadership it is not because we hate the
national leadership or the organization.
Harvey
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------