From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton 
Subject: Re: Change isn't Bad
Hi, Andy!
I am among those who believe strongly that NFB can beecome more
democratic, and that structural changes can do much to help.  The best,
most open possible system will bring no changes, however, unless the
participants want those changes:  the best a good system can do is create
the greatest opening for the members to implement the changes they want.
I think this is in line with a notion I heard about democracy:  "Democracy
does not work.  You must work it."  To me, this means two things at the
moment.  First, we must of course have a system that does not make it hard
for an organization's membership to make the changes it wants.  Second,
and probably much more important, the members of an organization--ours or
any other--must be willing to risk unpopularity for the sake of principled
positions and must be thoughtful in determining what those positions
should be.
"Periodic change" is not inherently a virtue.  The virtue, if any, is in
the particular change.  There are people in leadership I may want to
replace, but I only want to do that if I find somebody better, not simply
because a certain number of years or terms have elapsed.  
In an earlier message, you proposed term limits.  As a member, you of
course have the right to work for those; if you feel strongly enough about
them, one may argue that you even have a duty to do it.  I suggest that
term limits have at least two fatal flaws.  First, they constitute a
determination that the voters are unable to decide for themselves when
it's time for anew people in office--that democracy is acceptable only up
to a point.  Second, at least in the politics of the nation, they are a
simplistic and probably destructive way to avoid confronting the real
problems we face in trying to make the political playing field more level.
I think that democratic systems must be designed to encourage debate,
questioning of the status quo, and an unadulterated willingness to use and
speak one's mind.  Of course, they must also encourage listening to one
another with love and respect, the ability to make principled compromises,
and the willingness to abide by a vote when it has finally be
taken--though one must be able to raise an issue again when one thinks the
vote may be different.
I have other notions, but this commentary is long enough.  Take care!
Al
On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Andy Baracco wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Denise. Thank you for giving me a mission. Those who know me
> best, know that the way to put a fire under me, is to give me a
> mission. It is a  shame that the N. F. B. operates in such a way
> that real change cannot occur without the consent of the Board. It
> is also a shame that you cannot understand that  periodic changes
> in leadership are beneficial to the organization in the long run.
> The N. F. B. prides itself on growing great leaders. However, it
> rewards them by building a glass ceiling that traps them at levels
> well below their potential. What a waste! Periodic changes in
> leadership would give them the opportunity to really show off the
> full range of their talents, rather than spending their lives
> selling candy, or taking minutes at chapter meetings. Also,
> periodic changes in leadership gives the power to the organization,
> rather than to just those at the top. It makes the organization
> stronger than the sum of its parts. If something unforeseen happens
> to the President, such as a major illness, car crash, etc., the
> organization goes on. When most of the power is concentrated in the
> hands of a charismatic leader, and something happens to him or her,
> a great unsettling can occur which can do damage to the
> organization as a whole. In countries, such unsettling is called a
> revolution. I feel strongly that if the Federation does not change
> elements of its structure, such as how it chooses its leaders, such
> unsettling will happen upon the death of Kenneth Jernigan, unless
> he has made succession plans that we know nothing about.
> 
> Andy Baracco
> 
---
---------------