From: Steve Zielinski 
Subject: Re: Why the NFB
I read your message regarding what I view as additional hurdles a member 
must go through to get a simple resolution passed by the NFB convention, 
the supposed supreme authority of the organization.  These additional 
steps which a common member such as I was at the time must go through to 
get a simple resolution passed were put into place after a failed attempt 
was made to re instate Jamal Mazrui into membership.  I know, because I 
brought up the resolution.  
	The federation talks about how important resolutions are to the 
organization, that they are taken seriously by the board and are viewed 
and treated as public policy.  Beautiful and powerful words.  But it is 
precisely because the federation leadership doesn't want to be caught 
with their pants down, so to speak, regarding resolutions which contents 
are not known by the leadership in advance,, that they put forth the 
decree to require additional hurdles for the common member to follw.  By 
requiring this extra step to get so called sponsors of a resolution 
before taking it up, the organization leadership gets a preview of 
resolutions which will be brought up to the resolutions committee.  In 
the past they required a few hours notice poerhaps, or even none, as long 
as the materail was in a ready readable format and cleanly written.  This 
new requirement allows them to prepare a defense or outright withdraw a 
resolution which they are not in approval of.  All the while they preach 
that resolutions are the vehicles by which federation policy get enacted.
	Do you honestly think that a resolution will gain the five needed 
sponsors if it is controversial such as asking the membership to re 
instate a former member who was expelled against the constitution of the 
federation?  I don't and if you would give honest thought to it, I don't 
think you would either.  What does it say of democratic procedures when 
on one hand you commend the resolution process and on the other you set 
up a system by which you can control the flow of extremely controversial 
resolutions?  Is that democratic?  If a resolution means anything, then 
the littlest of members should have the unfettered right to propose them, 
no matter how controversial.  Before this new requirement there were no 
wild and so to speak reckless resolutions proposed.  People were able to 
reason with one another.  
	I recall how livid and upset Ken Jernigan was when we attempted 
to get the word out regarding this situation by placing copies of 
campaign material, under the hotel room doors of federation members.  And 
yes, by the way, they were in print, cassette tape and Braille.  On a 
side note, does the technology center provide literature in Braille for 
blind visitors?  I think that Mr. Jernigan needed to make sure that he 
and the board would never again be put in a position of needing to 
counter attack a cruisade with such short notice.  That's why the extra 
hurdles were put in place regarding resolutions, the policy statements of 
the organization.  And of course, the membership approved the changes.  
By doing so, they effectively made political eunichs of themselves.
Steve Zielinski
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 sojacobson@mmm.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Harvey,
> 
> Were you just making an observation on the plight of blind people during 
> a particularly dark period in human history with your reference to Naziism? 
> [grin]
> 
> Since many people read this list who are not members and may not read our
> constitution, the restrictions added to how resolutions are brought to the
> floor were these.  Anyone could and still can bring resolutions to the
> resolutions committee for action, but I think some lead time is requested
> now.  If the committee does not recommend that a resolution pass, any
> member could, in the past, ask that their resolution be considered on the
> floor.  Now, a resolution not recommended not to pass by the committee can
> only be brought to the floor with, I believe,signatures of five state
> presidents of affilliates.  Since voting takes place by states which for
> these purposes also includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
> five of fifty-two voting affilliates must sign.  Of course, they need not
> be in favor of the resolution to be willing to sign to have it heard.  
> Correct me if I don't have this quite right. 
> 
> > I did not call the N.F.B. leadership nazis nor did I draw any
> > kind of parallel between them.  I simply said that it was a very
> > efficiently run state but hardly one a blind person would wish to
> > live under.  My emotional rhetoric as you call it is simply that
> > any disagreement with the national leadership is interpreted by
> > you and others as emotional rhetoric just because I do disagree
> > with it on some issues.  The fact that it is an attempt at a
> > benevolent dictatorship has been underscored time and time again.
> > I refer you to Steve Zelinski's post detailing the changes made
> > after Jamal Mazrui's expulsion and also on the changes which now
> > make it harder for individuals to propose resolutions.
> > I am glad Jamal is back in the N.F.B., but I think his readmission
> > should have been accompanied by an apology from the national
> > leadership if for no other reason the poor manner in which it was
> > handled.  After all, the national leadership violated our own
> > constitution to get the job done.
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
+----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      stevez@ripco.com      |
+----------------------------+
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------