From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Agreed, so let's get it off the ground!
Al
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Steve Zielinski wrote:
> 
> 
> I can't  see the national board going for any kind of individual recording 
> of votes at this time.  Just by voting in that way, they loose the 
> assurance of certain affiliates going the way of the national boards 
> wishes.  The idea is a good one though.  And, with modern technology it 
> can be done, I think.  But, again, this would completely change the power 
> arrangements in the organization.  Much could be done if local leaders of 
> chapters and state affiliates discussed controversial issues, for 
> example, with the membership.  If everybody perceived that open 
> discussion was a good thing, then thoughts would fly and many new ideas 
> might form. Some day the voting structure might change, but it will 
> require the general membership to make the push for that.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Al and Masha Sten-Clanton wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe one of the best things we could do in this outfit would be to
> > determine an efficient way to do individual voting at national 
onvention,
> > and see if at least a majority of the whole membership would be willing 
o
> > adopt it.  I'm sure there are some folks who prefer the delegate system,
> > which gives small affiliates the same vote as the largest ones.  I have
> > come to think that, even with its problems, indivual voting would be the
> > way way to make decisions.  And of course, a means of secret balloting is
> > essential.
> > 
> > Al
> > 
> > 
> > On 16 Apr 1998, Harvey Heagy wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In a message sojacobson@mmm.com typed to All  
> > >  s> Isn't the impact of your comments here that one really can't trust 
the 
> > >  s> membership?  On the one hand, you are advocating for greater 
democracy, 
> > >  s> while on the other you are saying that the membership should not 
have the 
> > >  s> right or power to accept the recommendations of the leadership. 
> > > I think what we are saying is that the convention should have just as 
realistic and reasonable a chance to reject the recommendations of our 
leadership as we do to accept them.  We are not anti national leadership; we 
support it when we feel it is correct and oppose it when we feel it is wrong, 
but in recent years the deck has become too stacked in favor of the national 
leadership and it is getting worse all the time.  I wonder if we had 
electronic voting where each convention attendee could vote any issue up or 
down what would happen.  I think in such a situation the national leadership 
would do well to pass half its agenda.
> > > 
> > > Harvey 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> +----------------------------+
> |  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
> |      stevez@ripco.com      |
> +----------------------------+
> 
> 
> 
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------