From: Steve Zielinski 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Hello Harvey,
	I honestly can't see the national board planning to take a defeat 
on an issue so they can tote out the defeat as proof of democratic 
procedures.  I feel it is more likely that they saw where the wind was 
blowing and decided to listen a bit to avoid unnecessary problems.  I was 
not there, so cannot know from the  mood of the convention.  It just 
doesn't seem like the character of the leadership to deliberately take a 
loosing position on anything, for any reason.  External pressures, to me, 
are more likely to drive the national board.
	I also don't believe it is common for all members of any board to
be equally effective.  And like all bodies, some level of
favoritism can occur.  This favoritism may not even be overt.
I don't see the board as deliberately planning conspiracies against the 
 membership.  To me, it is more likely that they will respond to a 
perceived threat, like the Jamal case, and go to battle at the instant, 
and then use that experience to tighten their rule over future events.  
I think change will occur in the future, especially when you consider 
that:
1.   Mr. Jernigan will not be around to guide the boar
2.   Some of the current leadership at all levels will will recontemplate 
their positions in the Federation when they see that Mr. Jernigan is gone.
3.   More and more, the members will be able to feel that they can freely 
express themselves, and by the way, I think the internet itself will have 
an impact on this.
I suspect other factors will be in place.
	I think the crux of the problem of less democracy in the
organization is the almost religious experience many members feel
regarding the organization.  It becomes a kind of social vehicle for them,
and a place where a blind person can feel at home.  This is sustained when
you consider that many of the policies of the organization are correct or
more or less correct, and quite acceptable to the group as a whole. 
People need to view the organization simply as a vehicle for change, and
not a religious institution.  If people were as involved in other
organizations as they seem to be in the federation, the federation will
take a clearer perspective in their minds.  It's not the cat's meow.  And
of course the big think that makes people hold tight to their views of
power in the federation is the philosophy, which is outstanding.  It's
hard for some to keep the good and throw out the bad.  There are pressures
from other members and leaders to keep one in their place. 
	A quick example, when I was heavily involved in the organization, 
I knew many a person who discouraged knowing people from the ACB.  Some 
in the federation almost ravaged ACB members and their cause.  I, at that 
time, was not able to separate out the difference between a ACB member 
and the person themselves.  And that kind of thinking was supported by 
some other members who I knew.  Well, the truth is, these people in the 
ACB are people, like anyone else.  I don't see eye to eye with their 
philosophy for sure, but I've gotten to know a number of ACB members who 
are quite decent people.  In fact, when I went to the ACB convention 
in the early 90's, I was surprised how friendly the people were.  
Actually more friendly then a typical federation croud.  These are my 
perspectives.  It's that kind of experience wwhich makes one think about 
what is really going on.
 
Steve 
On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, Harvey Heagy wrote:
> 
> 
> It may indeed be nice that the membership was able to overrule
> the leadership on a relatively miner issue, but it is not history
> making any more than it is for Nac to revoke the accreditation of
> one small agency allegedly for failure to meet its standards
> just so it can have something to whip out later when it is asked
> whether or not it has ever revoked an accreditation for failure
> to meet standards.  After all, how do we know that the leadership
> didn't plan it that way just so they could say how democratic the
> movement really is?
> 
> I think we do have some ineffective people on our board of
> directors one whom I believe is being kept on only because he is
> one of the last of the Tenbroek boys still in a leadership position
> despite the fact that his affiliate which is now probably the
> richest in the country has given very little to the national
> treasury, and that he tried to develop a camp for the blind in his
> state even after the national leadership said that while it would
> not discourage the existing ones it would discourage the founding
> of new ones, and that he is the ultimate in mike hogs who takes 30
> minutes to say what most of us could say in 2 just because he loves
> to hear himself talk.  
> 
> and that we also have some disreputable people who continue to
> receive high profile positions or assignments in spite of their
> continuing failures while others are made to follow the rules to a
> fault.
> 
> I also think we have put more energy and resources into things
> better left on the back burner.  News line is a classic example of
> this.  It's a fine thing to have and I'm glad we have it as it
> allows access to information for blind persons that we might not
> otherwise have, but it is far overrated and is only being
> pushed because we developed the software for it.  It is far less
> important than education, job training or employment.
> 
> I hope we don't have any kind of wholesale defections from the
> organization, but in my opinion another civil war is not
> impossible and the irony is that the more tightly the national
> leadership pulls in the reins, the more likely it is to happen.
> 
> Harvey
> 
> 
> 
+----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      stevez@ripco.com      |
+----------------------------+
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------