From: David W Bundy 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
The Rocky Bottom Camp was established in 1978 and has been growing steadily
since.  If the time period you're discussing dates back that far, then it
is certainly before my time.  While I agree that SC does not do our fair
share to support the National, I would hesitate to call us a wealthy
affiliate, and I would also hesitate to blame Don Capps for a largely
apathetic grass roots membership.  While I cannot argue that he does not
like to hear himself talk, that does not diminish my admiration for what he
has done for this organization. He has dedicated the better part of fifty
years to the Federation, and since his retirement from Colonial Life (which
was prior to my association with the Federation), he has worked full time
for the organization.  Without the efforts of him and others like him, the
Federation would not be where it is today.
	I agree that change can be a good thing, but in spite of mistakes, our
current leadership has been successful , in my openion, at improving
conditions for the blind of this country.  I have no doubt that when they
cease to be successful in doing so, that we will replace them with others
who can.
						David
At 09:11 AM 4/19/98 +0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Jamal.  Thanks for your clarification of what happened.  I
>found it most interesting.
>
>Most of the coalitions you mentioned such as the World Blind
>Union and the Committee on Joint Action are blindness related.
>The one you did not mention, the alternative conference on
>handicapped individuals which sprung from the very ineffective
>White House Conference on Handicapped Individuals was a spur of
>the moment action that needed to be taken at that time and place
>because it was clear that the conference was not only unfairly
>stacked in favor of the traditional agencies but placed blind
>people in workshops on the profoundly retarded and such.
>
>As far as your article, I remember us publishing an article called,
>"Is the office for the Blind really for the Blind?"  During the
>publishing process its then director Doug McFarland died and we
>were unable to kill the story so we printed an apology as we had no
>idea it would published posthumously.  So I can understand this and
>have no problem with it.  However, I think you should be given a
>chance to clarify or refute anything in the October Monitor article
>you feel to be inaccurate or unfair.  
>
>As far as personal attacks are concerned, I think there is a
>difference between opinion and fact.  What I said about Marc
>Maurer's token involvement in my legal case was not my opinion;
>that is fact and is a matter of record.  If the attorney of
>record in that case is still practicing you could ask her whether
>what I am saying is fact or opinion.
>
>It is a fact that the advise Barbara Pierce gave the Public
>Relations committee about barraging broadcast stations with
>letters asking them to accept our pre-recorded public service
>announcements would get nowhere if the station doesn't take
>pre-recorded public service material.  The F.C.C. has dropped most
>if not all programming requirements so each station can pretty much
>set its own policies on what it will and will not accept as public
>service commitment.  I can tell you that today, a station has more
>of a chance of loosing its broadcast license for not having what
>the F.C.C. would call an effective affirmative action program than
>for profanity on the air.  Infinity Broadcasting has been fined
>numerous times in the neighborhood of millions of dollars for
>Howard Stern's comments but the show is still on the air
>unaffected.  So obviously this isn't much punishment as they are
>simply paying the fines and making a killing on the show.  I've
>spent a good part of my life in broadcasting and have worked with
>this as a D.J. and a Program Director.  What she was saying was
>simply rhetoric to fit the committee and the convention.  
>
>Anyone who has sat through Mr. Capps's M.C.ing of banquets and
>such know he loves to get on mike, and all one has to do is
>listen to past roll calls of states and compare what South
>Carolina has given in comparison to its assets and to what other
>affiliates give to know whether or not I am telling the truth.  I
>don't know if he ever got the camp for the blind in South Carolina
>off the ground or not, but the fact that he tried to form one after
>it was clear that the national discouraged such efforts is clear
>unless someone has information that I do not have.  The national
>leadership may not want the members to know these things, but they
>happened whether they wish to admit them or not or whether or not
>they know about some of them is a different matter.
>
>Harvey
>
>
>
>
...I'm not conceited, just self aware...
David W. Bundy, MSW
National Federation of the Blind 
Telephone: (803) 252-2667
E-Mail: 	 bundy@netside.com	
S-Mail: 2306 Sumter St., Columbia. SC 29201
http://www.netside.com/~bundy/
SC Association of Blind Students Homepage: 
http://www.netside.com/~bundy/scabs/
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------