From: Jim Gashel 
Subject: Re: Conflict of Interest
Harvey:
where on earth did you get the idea that the nfb is really so much
different from any other large political movement.  we are not a debating
society.  that has been said many times over.  under your construction,
all voices in the movement would appear to be of equivillent rank.  we
would apparently have to give as much weight and time to listen to the
ideas of a brand new person as we would to a seasoned and known leader.
afterall, the new guy might really be telling us something worthwhile.
therefore, under your construction, we owe him as much of a hearing as we
do someone who has lead the movement for 25 years.  
whether it should work this way or not, it doesn't.  denise mackenstadt
and others have already pointed out to you that you don't acquire respect
and strength in any political movement merely by showing up and having an
idea.  you have to earn your stripes as a political leader first.  that
often means supporting those who are in the power position that you would
ultimately like to have.  
take yourself for example.  you are one of those who shows up but mostly
to complain about what the current leaders have or have not done.  you do
this, even though you can surely observe that the leaders you are
complaining about have widespread support.  the result is that few people
take you or your ideas seriously.  
if you took another tack you would probably be a great deal more
effective.  take someone who is a recognized leader in our movement, for
example.  Say jim omvig.  if he shows up and advocates for the same
position that you might have expressed, more people will listen seriously
than the few who will listen to you.  this is because jim omvig normally
is in the mainstream of the leadership.  he is respected as a leader in
the movement in part because he does not have a record of just showing up
to complain.  far different from you, people listen to him and take him
seriously.  in your case, you have so established in people's minds that
you are a complainer, that a valuable contribution which you might have is
overshaddowed by the excess baggage.  my impression of you is that you
want the rest of us to see you as a chronic complainer, but i can't
imagine why.  if you do, it is also hard for me to understand why you are
put out with our leaders when they do not listen to you.  we are people,
harvey.  we tend to listen to those who have followings and not to those
who we observe to be ineffective complainers.  whether you like it this
way or not, the nfb cannot but help operating this way.  
thanks,
J. G.
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 hheagy@delphi.com wrote:
> 
> 
> As I pointed out in another post, we are supposed to be an
> interactive consumer organization; led by the national but not
> dominated or controlled by it.  There is a difference.
> 
> I also agree that Roberts Rules of Procedure should not be used
> to circumvent the will of the convention, but neither should
> intimidation tactics.  Shouldn't we be allowed to state our
> disagreement with the national leadership or with individuals
> thereof without fear of reprisal or intimidation as long as we do
> not engage in public personal attacks?  Why should we have to
> fear writing a disagreeing letter because it later may be used in
> a leadership seminar, or in a Monitor, or banquet address or
> presidential release?  And take my word, no matter what is said
> about sensitive information being used in seminars, it always
> gets back to the people involved.
> 
> As far as the resolution about the National Center, I think that
> is a classic example of when a resolution should be sent to the
> floor without prejudice so that a true decision of the convention
> can be arrived at.  I personally will not support a national
> center as long as there are civil rights cases left untouched due
> to lack of funds.
> 
> 
> 
> Harvey
> 
> Net-Tamer V 1.10 Beta  - Registered
> 
> 
---
---------------