In a message Walt Cone typed to Harvey Heagy  
 WC>      I can think of a few times where the National Leadership
 WC> brought proposals to the floor of the convention and they were
 WC> defeated or tabled.  If I recall in 1984 we had a 3 hour debate
 WC> about having a national rehabilatation centre.  The membership felt
 WC> we as an advocacy organization should insist the states provide
 WC> better rehabilatation services for blind americans.  The members
 WC> felt a national centre would slow progress in this area.
I remember that debate, and you are right.  But the national leadership more 
or less left it up to the membership in this matter.  Their position was, in 
effect, that if we had little or no money in the treasury that we could not 
provide a national center because it would take too much away from other 
important work such as civil rights.  On the other hand, if we had a lot of 
money such as the A.F.B. has then we would be morally obligated to provide a 
national center.  The thinking was that we were somewhere in the middle and 
the membership was asked how it felt about it.  I also agreed that as long as 
we were turnning down civil rights cases for lack of funds then we shouldn't 
take on any more major projects.  After all, we were the only ones providing 
advocacy for the blind and that was what was decided.  I can tell you as a 
person who lives in a state where there is an N.F.B. run center that the 
center has taken most of our resources and has received too much attention 
shifting needed resources away from other issues.  
 WC>      Well I have to differ with you.  Robert Accosta was nominated
 WC> from the floor in 1977.  I don't recall if he won, but I served on
 WC> that nominating commitee and he was not nominated by that commitee.
Robert Accosta was never on the national board.  He was state president of 
the California affiliate and I think president of the Teacher's division but 
he did not win the election.
Harvey 
--- msged 2.07
---------------