> +----------------------------+ > > > -- 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. --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F5G00060Date: 04/15/98 From: HARVEY HEAGY Time: 06:42am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: To: NFB-Talk@NFBnet.org From: Harvey Heagy Subject: To: NFB-Talk@NFBnet.org I believe you are correct about the signatures of 5 state presidents being required to bring a resoltuin out of committee and that 3 such people must sign to have a resolution considered if it is not in teh hands of the resolution committee chairman 2 weeks prior to the first meeting of the committee, but what is interesting is that resolutions brought to the floor by the board of directors have no such restrictions. Harvey --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F5G00061Date: 04/15/98 From: STEVE ZIELINSKI Time: 05:10pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Why the NFB From: Steve Zielinski Subject: Re: Why the NFB I read your message regarding what I view as additional hurdles a member must go through to get a simple resolution passed by the NFB convention, the supposed supreme authority of the organization. These additional steps which a common member such as I was at the time must go through to get a simple resolution passed were put into place after a failed attempt was made to re instate Jamal Mazrui into membership. I know, because I brought up the resolution. The federation talks about how important resolutions are to the organization, that they are taken seriously by the board and are viewed and treated as public policy. Beautiful and powerful words. But it is precisely because the federation leadership doesn't want to be caught with their pants down, so to speak, regarding resolutions which contents are not known by the leadership in advance,, that they put forth the decree to require additional hurdles for the common member to follw. By requiring this extra step to get so called sponsors of a resolution before taking it up, the organization leadership gets a preview of resolutions which will be brought up to the resolutions committee. In the past they required a few hours notice poerhaps, or even none, as long as the materail was in a ready readable format and cleanly written. This new requirement allows them to prepare a defense or outright withdraw a resolution which they are not in approval of. All the while they preach that resolutions are the vehicles by which federation policy get enacted. Do you honestly think that a resolution will gain the five needed sponsors if it is controversial such as asking the membership to re instate a former member who was expelled against the constitution of the federation? I don't and if you would give honest thought to it, I don't think you would either. What does it say of democratic procedures when on one hand you commend the resolution process and on the other you set up a system by which you can control the flow of extremely controversial resolutions? Is that democratic? If a resolution means anything, then the littlest of members should have the unfettered right to propose them, no matter how controversial. Before this new requirement there were no wild and so to speak reckless resolutions proposed. People were able to reason with one another. I recall how livid and upset Ken Jernigan was when we attempted to get the word out regarding this situation by placing copies of campaign material, under the hotel room doors of federation members. And yes, by the way, they were in print, cassette tape and Braille. On a side note, does the technology center provide literature in Braille for blind visitors? I think that Mr. Jernigan needed to make sure that he and the board would never again be put in a position of needing to counter attack a cruisade with such short notice. That's why the extra hurdles were put in place regarding resolutions, the policy statements of the organization. And of course, the membership approved the changes. By doing so, they effectively made political eunichs of themselves. Steve Zielinski On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 sojacobson@mmm.com wrote: > > > Harvey, > > Were you just making an observation on the plight of blind people during > a particularly dark period in human history with your reference to Naziism? > [grin] > > Since many people read this list who are not members and may not read our > constitution, the restrictions added to how resolutions are brought to the > floor were these. Anyone could and still can bring resolutions to the > resolutions committee for action, but I think some lead time is requested > now. If the committee does not recommend that a resolution pass, any > member could, in the past, ask that their resolution be considered on the > floor. Now, a resolution not recommended not to pass by the committee can > only be brought to the floor with, I believe,signatures of five state > presidents of affilliates. Since voting takes place by states which for > these purposes also includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, > five of fifty-two voting affilliates must sign. Of course, they need not > be in favor of the resolution to be willing to sign to have it heard. > Correct me if I don't have this quite right. > > > I did not call the N.F.B. leadership nazis nor did I draw any > > kind of parallel between them. I simply said that it was a very > > efficiently run state but hardly one a blind person would wish to > > live under. My emotional rhetoric as you call it is simply that > > any disagreement with the national leadership is interpreted by > > you and others as emotional rhetoric just because I do disagree > > with it on some issues. The fact that it is an attempt at a > > benevolent dictatorship has been underscored time and time again. > > I refer you to Steve Zelinski's post detailing the changes made > > after Jamal Mazrui's expulsion and also on the changes which now > > make it harder for individuals to propose resolutions. > > I am glad Jamal is back in the N.F.B., but I think his readmission > > should have been accompanied by an apology from the national > > leadership if for no other reason the poor manner in which it was > > handled. After all, the national leadership violated our own > > constitution to get the job done. > > > > > > Harvey > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > +----------------------------+ | Steve Zielinski (N8UJS) | | stevez@ripco.com | +----------------------------+ --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F5G00062Date: 04/15/98 From: STEVE ZIELINSKI Time: 05:23pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Why The NFB From: Steve Zielinski Subject: Re: Why The NFB Harvey, Yes, Harvey, it's the lack of meaningful political involvement that really concerns me. It's sad, because the federation has a winning philosophy and a truly life changing concept. Some day the politics will change but it will require the general membership to understand what is going on. Political involvement is not what draws most people to the organization, it wasn't so for me, but fair treatment and an overal sense of fairness are important. The politics are what they are because they were developed that way from the top with little impetus to change from the common members. Therefore the leadership was free to set up the rules as much in their favor as possible. When the general membership begin to try and take back some power, they will meet resistance from the leadership, that is the natural nature of power in any group. If the momentum is strong enough the general membership will gain some power back, but their will be casuties in the process, expulsions and reorganizations and the like. I think Jamal feels that the overall objectives of the organization are worth his support more than the current political situation within the organization. I don't in any way mean to speak for him and I could be entirely wrong. He also believes in the philosophy of the organization as I and you do. I give him credit for trying to work within a political structure of which he is quite familiar, you can be sure. On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Harvey Heagy wrote: > > > Hi Steve. I think you hit it right on the head. We are not > opposed to the N.F.B. philosophy or its accomplishments, but to > some of the internal politics of the organization. The expulsion > to Jamal Mazrui to which you referred to is a classic example. > Our national leadership is always saying that if we have a > dispute to come to the convention and work it out. But what they > really mean is, "Work it out our way." Jamal never got a fair > hearing and that is a violation of the spirit if not the letter > of our own constitution. Even if he did something terrible which > warranted expulsion he still deserved a fair hearing. > > But do you remember in 1981 when the John Taylor Silvester Nemers > thing was the top story? The national got behind John > Halverson's non-debatable resolution that any consideration of > that matter be held off till Friday afternoon which would have > rendered them ineffective even if they had won. I don't blame > them for not accepting that even though I never agreed nor had > much regard for John Taylor and his crowd. It still violated the > very words our leaders claim to espouse of giving everyone a fair > hearing. So I think you hit it right on the head. Sure we want > someone protecting our rights as blind people, but while we > recognize that rules and constitutions are not perfect and that > sometimes exceptions must be made, we want the > same standards to apply to the national leadership as does for > the rank and file. I'm surprised he even wanted to come > back. > > > Harvey > > > +----------------------------+ | Steve Zielinski (N8UJS) | | stevez@ripco.com | +----------------------------+ --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F5G00063Date: 04/15/98 From: AL AND MASHA STEN-CLANTON Time: 05:36pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Why the NFB From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton Subject: Re: Why the NFB Well said, bro! Al On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 empower@smart.net wrote: > Well said, Al! Politicians sometimes gain credibility by being forthright > about errors in judgment, and even apologizing on occasion. For > example, if facts about Clinton and Lewinski come out that > contradict the Presiden's public statements, he will surely be > worse off than if he had told the American people up front > about a lapse in judgment he had, regrets, and is seeking to > correct in some way. > > One thing I hope we consider is that organizational processes that may > have been appropriate in the past might not be optimum any longer. > Forces in the field of blindness have shifted considerably over the last > decade. Civil rights laws have fundamentally changed. Information > technology has altered the daily business and personal environment of > our lives. I know the Federation is cogniscent of the times and > committed to an ongoing record of accomplishment for blind people. As > we look toward the next century, perhaps we should consider more > deliberately how we should best adapt our means to achieve the ends of > first class citizenship in the world of 2000. I appreciate this list > as a forum for such discussion. > > Regards, > Jamal > > Net-Tamer V 1.09.2 - Registered > --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F5G00064Date: 04/15/98 From: AL AND MASHA STEN-CLANTON Time: 06:08pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Why the NFB Hello listers, From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton Subject: Re: Why the NFB Hello listers, On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Richard Webb wrote: > I too oppose tactile warnings, beeping lights, and other such needles > gizmos. You've probably seen some of the letters I've sent to > publications when they feature such needless technology. I can > presume, however that the reason we would take part in such > foolishness at all is to try to demonstrate to the researchers that > there is no substitute for good orientation and mobility training. A > person with such skills does not necessarily need the "talking fence" > or truncated domes. The reason you propose for our involvement in tha business makes a lot of sense, except perhaps in the cost to the taxpayers. (I don't know the cost, but I think it was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.) I even considered that this might have been our aim at the time. If so, then the failure of the "electronic fence" was a kind of success for us, and we might have done well to say so and set forth the reasons. Be sure that I agree with much of your eloquent message. I'm sorry I won't have the chance to meet you in Dallas. (This afternoon, I made my flight reservations for my first convention since 1990.) Take care! Al --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059)