From: sojacobson@mmm.com
Subject: Re: Why the NFB
It was a long time ago and my memory may be a little fuzzy on this, but I 
remember that the sentiment was also overwhelming that the convention 
rates should be kept as low as possible.  There was also discussion and I 
think an affirmative voice vote that we should hold conventions in a 
single complex without the need for busses whenever possible.  
> 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
> 
> 
> 
--
          Steve Jacobson
          National Federation of the Blind
          3M Company 
          E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------