From: sojacobson@mmm.com
Subject: Re: responsibilities of leadership
> . . . Now if I had known about
> this possibility when we left Jackson I might have done things
> differently, but by letting them have their way I figured that
> maybe next time we had a long charter they might listen to those of
> us who were knowledgeable and acting in their best interest.
If I had been on that bus, I would have assumed that since you didn't act 
in my best interest then, how could I expect that you would next time.  I 
would also resent a leader who would knowingly let me make an unwise 
choice so that I would know better next time.  
> As far as intrusting certain decisions to the national
> leadership, that's what we elect them for.  The convention can't
> vote on every issue that comes up during the year and that's what
> our leaders are there for.  However, our constitution also says,
> in effect, that the convention is supreme authority; it doesn't
> say, "except when it doesn't suit the convenience of the national
> leadership."  We are also supposed to be an interactive consumer
> organization.  
> 
> Also, unlike a lot of groups, we pay our way to
> the conventions out of our own pockets.  We deserve more than to
> go and just say "I," to everything on the convention floor.
> 
This reminds me of some people I knew who judged the quality of a 
convention by how much debate took place.  In their minds, a convention 
wasn't worth much unless there was a good fight.  If there were a few 
tears, that was even better.  If somebody got mad and walked out, then it 
was really a good meeting.  I've seen our state Democratic Farmer Labor 
party argue over clauses within planks of their platform until the early 
hourse of the morning, only to have that platform plank never mentioned 
by those running for office.  I've seen such meetings in our affilliate 
here, and I've heard tapes of national conventions of the early sixties.  
Those were not the good old days, and nothing was gained by letting debate 
go on and on.
There is a lot to be said for our tradition of debating an issue, voting 
on it then putting it behind us.  Allowing the debate that surrounds 
resolutions to take place within the open meetings of the Resolutions 
Committee makes sense to me.  Even so, I've seen plenty of resolutions 
debated over the years on the floor, so I really don't go along with your 
assertion that you only get to say "I."  
Furthermore, I would like to see us follow what I call the "debate and 
move on" tradition on this list as well.  After a point, we are more 
likely to say something that accidentally offends someone than saying 
anything that is really new.
We have elected some high quality leaders.  It seems to me that giving 
them the benefit of the doubt, that is, assuming that they are acting in 
our best interest rather than giving us the shaft, is the sensible thing 
to do.  Doing so is far different than unquestioningly following the 
leader as others have said.  We need to let our leaders lead and make our 
judgements when it is time for elections.  One can certainly ask for an 
explanation without assuming that something has been done wrong.  It 
seems unreasonable to count mistakes before they happen.
--
          Steve Jacobson
          National Federation of the Blind
          3M Company 
          E-mail:  SOJACOBSON@MMM.COM
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 3M Company.
---
---------------