From: David Andrews 
Subject: Re: Why the NFB
Harvey:
I think you are to quick to judge a "voice vote."  My recollection of the
1990 voice vote was that the people wanting to come back won by a little.
With voice votes, I think it depends on where you were sitting.
I remember talking to two other people about a recent voice vote, in the
last couple years, a close one, I don't remember which, and we all three
had different ideas on what had happened.
David Andrews
At 12:43 AM 4/13/98 +0500, you wrote:
>
>
>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)
---------------