From: Steve Zielinski 
Subject: Re: Why The NFB
Hello Jim,
Firstly, mob rule is not democracy, it's more akind to anarchy.  With 
democracy people have an opportunity to express their views freely 
without fear of censure or reactionary methods of stifling speech.  I 
stand corrected in this forum regarding the timing of the new resolutions 
rules, but nevertheless, maintain the idea that in their current form, 
the resolutions committee controls the flow of ideas going through the 
committee.  As Harvey indicated in the past, these special rules for 
submission of a resolution do not apply to the committee itself.  Is it 
that they can be assured of promoting resolutions which are favorable to 
the leadership or is it that, as resolution committee members, they have 
a unique understanding of federation philosophy or where the organization 
is going?  
	I don't know, but I do not think you were elected by the student
body to represent them as an administrator.  This is the key, the leaders
of the federation, like any elected body, are accountable to the members. 
This is the point of representative democracy.  The leaders do make good
decisions much of the time but they also make mistakes.  If they function
in an environment which is designed to operate with less meaningful input
from the members, then it is not as democratic as it is perported to be. 
The test of a democracy occurs when ideas which are not so popular with
the majority are given free reign to express themselves, so that the
majority and the monority have an opportunity to take a fair vote and move
on.  This was not the case with the Jamal Mazrui case.  He was treated 
unfairly when expelled and political pressure and unfair tactics were 
used to make sure he was not heard by the membership at large.  He may 
not have won his case with the membership. who knows, but at least he 
would have his case heard, the vote would have been 
taken 
fairly, and things would move on.  I don't think any reasonable person 
will argue with the results of a fair vote.  With a fair vote, the 
process would have been followed, rules applied, and the results fairly 
known.  This was not done in his case.  If it were done then democratic 
procedures would have been followed.  There is a striking difference 
between what the constitution of the NFB states and what practices are 
actually followed.  That's the problem.Could he have won his case with 
the membership if procedures were followed?  Who knows, but we won't know 
since procedures were not followed.  
	An yes, there is a time where leadership must take a position 
after synthesizing all the ideas.  Sometimes there is not enough time for 
determining the position to take.  This is especially true when the 
positions taken by leadership follow decissions of the board and 
membership which are clear cut and have already been determined.  But 
when controversial issues come up dealing with fundamental issues of what 
democracy means, and how to apply it, that is not the time to go into the 
power mode.  
	Someone on this list indicated that sinse we are debating these issues 
here, the federation was democratic.  Anyone can debate anything a little 
as long as the leadership is not directly affected, a little debate and 
discussion on any topic doesn't prove you are dealing with a democracy.  
Also, I suspect, but don't know for sure, that all these messages are 
being archived somewhere.  Many lists do keep archives.  
	To close Jim, I would basically say that the way the federation 
is currently functioning, it is too much of a top down organization 
rather than an organization which takes ideas, even controversial ones, 
from members and treats them with respect.  I still believe the 
organization can be just as effective and more respected by outsiders and 
members when it deals openly with its good points and failures.  That's 
not occuring yet.  The membership also needs to take a more active, 
thoughtful role in determining what policies are taken and how 
controversial ones are handled.  Balance is the key word.
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Jim Marks wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't understand the emphasis on democracy.  Democracies can and do go
> bad.  Surely reasonable people won't support mob rule, the worst form of
> democracy.  Representative forms of government such as we have in the
> United States and in the Federation certainly have their faults, but they
> do assure that good ideas float to the surface.  Moreover, democracies
> don't guarantee full participation and representative governments don't
> exclude full participation.  Methinks we are confusing means with ends
> here.  The philosophy of blindness perpetrated by our organization is the
> point, the ends we hope to achieve.  We don't gather to pat one another on
> the back for being democratic or accountable; we work together to do
> something about blindness.  The means of accomplishing this are multi-fold.
>  No single way is best in our efforts to change what it means to be blind.
> We have to maintain our integrity, but we absolutely must keep our eyes on
> the prize.
> 
> And here's another thing to ponder along the same lines.  I am an
> administrator of a student affairs department at a university.  As the
> administrator, I can and often do elect to use different forms of
> leadership.  Sometimes I act autocratically and independently.  Sometimes I
> gather input from my staff and make decisions based on the input.  And
> still other times, I put issues to democratic votes.  In other words, I
> choose different means to accomplish what I feel are important ends.
> Success is measured by the outcomes rather than the processes used.
> Whenever I can, I try to include others as well as trying to nurture
> understandings.  But sometimes this just doesn't work.  All opinions aren't
> equal.  Now I realize volunteer groups such as the Federation are different
> from the workplace.  But come on.  We need to spend most of our energies on
> blindness and less on how we do things.  It seems that when we debate the
> processes used by our organization, it should always fall within the
> context of our mission.  The evaluations of the processes as well as of our
> leaders can then be relevant and centered.
> 
> Take the resolutions process.  Is it more important to have good quality
> resolutions or is it more important to give every opinion equal weight?  In
> either case, equal opportunity is presumed because I see nothing which
> prevents anyone from exercising their opinions.  Instead, the resolutions
> process has been weighted to the favor of the leadership within the
> organization.  The standards might be higher, but the opportunity remains
> constant.  Finally, I must ask.  Has there ever been a resolution denied
> which is truly in the best interests of first class citizenship for the
> blind?  I doubt it.  And I think the stricter guidelines help us fulfill
> our mission better than leaving the doors wide open.
> 
> Jim Marks
> 
> 
> 
+----------------------------+
|  Steve Zielinski  (N8UJS)  |
|      stevez@ripco.com      |
+----------------------------+
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------