[Blindtlk] Fwd: [Nfbv-announce] Retirement of Dr. Maurer

[Steve Jacobson]

Arielle and all,

Please allow me to present a somewhat different perspective.  Before I do that though, I believe that we are a 
stronger and better organization if members understand reasons for taking positions rather than simply adopting a 
point of view out of pressure or even out of respect.  One of the ways this is accomplished is through debate.  I 
have not been one to object when a given position that we have taken is challenged on our lists because it forces 
us to think about why we support a particular position.  

While certainly elections can be controlled, I worry if we try to structure them to force competition that is not 
necessarily there naturally.  In my view, it is very difficult to draw hard and fast parrallels between the NFB 
and the government of the United states.  If one draws parallels between organizations, one also needs to examine 
the entire organization, its structure, its history, and its programs, to see how parallels really fit, not just 
selected characteristics.  

In this particular case, I feel that the NFB is more like a political party than a government.  The NFB is not 
just a mechanism for anyone to apply pressure to change society in just any direction.  It is an organization with 
a philosophy that blind people tend to accept or in some cases reject.  Those who reject our philosophy join other 
organizations or don't join anything.  In other words, those of us who have joined the Federation have, by the 
very fact that we have joined, expressed a similarity in viewpoint already.  This is going to cause us to have a 
platform of agreement from which our differences are based.  I don't see a contradiction, therefore, between 
having one person run for a position and Democracy, as long as the option to have additional candidates exists.  
Is it a negative aspect of our organizational culture, or is it a logical outgrowth of the commonality we have by 
virtue of joining the Federation?  I think it is mostly the latter.  Even if we were to require two people to run, 
some would still feel intimmidated.

It is easy to see how things are and decide it must be changed, defining the status quo as wrong and any change as 
an improvement.  The status quo is never always wrong nor is it always right.  Change is not always right nor is 
it always wrong.  One has to evaluate each case.  Years ago in my state, our bylaws required that we have two 
candidates for each office.  If an election had one candidate only, it could not take place because it was in 
violation of our bylaws.  Often there were two willing candidates, but sometimes we had to really work hard to 
find a second candidate.  There were cases where one candidate was very popular, and the people we found to run 
against them did so just because they knew someone had to satisfy the bylaws.  Losing such an election could often 
be humiliating, but it was endured for the cause.  I never saw any particular good come out of such a requirement 
then or now.  In my mind, term limits are really the same sort of artificial requirement.  It makes little sense 
to me to tell voters that in the name of democracy, we're going to tell you this person can no longer run.  If you 
have not seen this in action, it is easy to see requiring two candidates as creating a more democratic election.  
>From my experience, it doesn't accomplish that at all.

So does this mean that since we have all joined the Federation we will never have differences?  No, of course it 
doesn't mean that.  This is where we have to always exercise some care.  I don't think that the care we exercise, 
though, is shown by requiring two people to run for every election, nor is it shown by necessarily making people 
feel they are being undemocratic if they support a candidate that is known to have been suggested by the person 
who previously held that office.  Rather, we need to engage in thoughtful discussions, whether on lists or whether 
during meetings.  Whether or not we agree with a position that is taken, we need to understand the reasons for 
that position.  We must take our philosophy into account when looking at issues, so we know when our philosophy 
might need to bend and when philosophy needs to govern the decision we make.  Mostly, I think we do that pretty 
well.  The exchanging of ideas and reasonable discussion is what makes a democracy, not requiring multiple 
candidates or limiting terms, and considering how best to do that is what will keep us healthy.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:21:08 -0700, Arielle Silverman wrote:

>Hi Marion, Mike and all,

>I am curious whether you believe that the president of the United
>States should also be "elected" in a system where there is only one
>dominant candidate? After all, the job of the U.S. president is much
>more important than the job of the NFB president. The U.S. president
>oversees a multi-trillion-dollar budget, makes life-or-death military
>decisions, and has the capacity to control the international economy.
>If we allow the U.S. president to be chosen among multiple competing
>candidates, is that not leaving too much to chance?
>If you believe that the U.S. president should be chosen in a similar
>way to the NFB president, then we can debate about whether the current
>democratic process in the U.S. is a good or bad thing. If you feel
>that selection of the NFB president should somehow be different than
>selection of the U.S. president, then I am curious what you think the
>difference is.

>Of course U.S. presidential candidates are pre-approved by their
>political parties, so there is some election management there. But
>then the people are presented with at least two people to choose from.
>People vote based on their party affiliations, the statements of the
>candidates or both. While this is not a perfect system and not
>everybody votes in an unbiased way, it is certainly not just "leaving
>it up to chance". In the NFB, this kind of system could be implemented
>by having a nominating committee propose two candidates for election,
>allowing nominations from the floor in addition to the two slated
>candidates, then letting the membership vote on all nominated
>candidates.

>As far as NFB politics go, the constitution and procedures are
>technically democratic. But I am more concerned about the norms and
>culture that have developed  within the organization. I am concerned
>that some people feel they will be ostracized or marginalized in the
>NFB if they challenge the incumbent leadership. Consequently, no
>challenges are ever made, and talented individuals who disagree with
>the incumbent leadership leave rather than making their voices heard.
>Furthermore, though the NFB membership can set policy through
>resolutions, my experience has been that it is difficult for
>rank-and-file members to get resolutions introduced through the
>resolutions committee, which is appointed by the president. So if a
>rank-and-file member wants to propose a policy that is unpopular at
>the top, it rarely, if ever, gets considered by the full convention.
>In order to parallel U.S. parliamentary procedures, the resolutions
>committee should be chosen by the people (assuming the resolutions
>committee is like the legislature) or perhaps should be made up of
>affiliate presidents (who are chosen by the people and represent them
>as delegates to the convention). In general, I think the single-party
>leadership system we have, though promoting overall unity, has the
>disadvantage of limiting how effectively the membership can check the
>president's power. It makes it more difficult, both logistically and
>psychologically, for members to bring in alternate presidential
>candidates. And if a president goes unchecked, can we really say we
>are operating as a democracy?

>Arielle

>On 12/3/13, Ray Foret Jr <rforet7706 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> No Mark, I do not foresee the dangers you outline here.  In fact, these are
>> very ancient arguments some of which were tried during the civil war of the
>> federation.  They did not work then and will not work now.
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Mac, the only computer with full accessibility for the blind
>> built-in!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray, still a very happy Mac and Iphone 5 user!
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Mark Tardif <markspark at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Marion,
>>>
>>> I hear what you are saying, and I think you raise valid points.  But, if
>>> we do not shake up the leadership from time to time, while recognizing
>>> that there is a need for leaders with Strong Federation philosophies, is
>>> there not the threat that our leaders will become isolated from the
>>> people?  Also, is there not the threat that leaders will simply take for
>>> granted that they can do what they like regarding policy pretty much
>>> regardless of the wish of the body politic?  I just think these are things
>>> to consider, and are we not supposed to be a grass roots organization?
>>> Again, just things to consider.
>>>
>>> Mark Tardif
>>> Nuclear arms will not hold you.
>>> -----Original Message----- From: National Association of Guide Dog Users
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:21 PM
>>> To: 'Blind Talk Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Fwd: [Nfbv-announce] Retirement of Dr. Maurer
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> It only makes good organizational and managerial sense to maintain a
>>> sound line of leadership for any organization. One of the characteristics
>>> that makes the NFB such an influential player in the disability rights
>>> arena
>>> is its strong management and continuity of leadership. Leaving the
>>> leadership of a multi million dollar nonprofit corporation to chance just
>>> doesn't make good business sense.
>>>
>>> Fraternally yours,
>>> Marion Gwizdala
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Lauren
>>> Merryfield
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 6:50 PM
>>> To: 'Blind Talk Mailing List'
>>> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Fwd: [Nfbv-announce] Retirement of Dr. Maurer
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I do not see Mr. Maurer's supporting Mr. Riccobono and his subsequent
>>> election as a formality. Whoever leads us when Mr. Maurer steps down
>>> needs
>>> to have many of the qualities Mr. tenBroek, Dr. Jernigan, Mr. Maurer and
>>> others had, plus a thorough understanding of how to lead the NFB. Any of
>>> us
>>> out here might not possess those qualities and we certainly do not know
>>> the
>>> inner workings of the NFB.  It would be scary, and possibly disastrous,
>>> if
>>> someone were elected President who wasn't fully prepared and ready to
>>> lead
>>> us.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd like to see an open-minded  female finally lead the NFB,
>>> but, then, I'd like to see a liberal female run the USA, too, for a
>>> change.
>>> But that isn't happening yet.  So we're still behind the times.
>>>
>>> I am thinking that Mr. Riccobono, though I do not know him, is probably
>>> the
>>> best one to lead us in the future. I do trust Mr. Maurer's and the
>>> National
>>> Board's thinking on most things, therefore, I do not feel as if Mr.
>>> Riccobono's stepping up to the Presidency as  only a formality. I'm sure
>>> he
>>> has been being prepared for this for some time, so it is no overnight
>>> decision on Mr. Maurer's part.
>>>
>>> I'm sure glad it isn't me. I am happy to let someone serve in that
>>> position
>>> and I do feel that my vote would count, were I able to attend the
>>> National
>>> Convention next summer, which I won't. Not unless I rob a big bank, haha.
>>> Many blessings,
>>> Laurenthe
>>>
>>> For my new book go to:
>>> www.TheresMoreThanOneWay.com
>>> curious about thirty-one? Go to:
>>> www.LettingTheCatOutOfTheBag.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ray
>>> Foret
>>> Jr
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:17 PM
>>> To: Blind Talk Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Fwd: [Nfbv-announce] Retirement of Dr. Maurer
>>>
>>> Paul, You seem, with respect, to be implying that one must choose between
>>> lack of transparency and a good program for the blind or else full
>>> transparency and a bad program for the blind.  I do not agree.  Here is
>>> what
>>> I think will go down.  Maurer will support Riccobono and then, when it
>>> comes
>>> convention time, and time to elect the next president, Riccobono will be
>>> chosen by acclamation without any competition.  Now, if one were to take
>>> this process strictly in parliamentary terms, it would be impossible to
>>> quarrel with its legitimacy.  My concern, to speak frankly, is this.
>>> That
>>> looks too much like a mere hand off instead of a legitimate election.
>>> Smooth?  Yes.  Efficient?  You'd better believe it.  Morally right?
>>> Well,
>>> that's where I have a slight problem.  I'm not saying that this way of
>>> doing
>>> it is completely wrong:  however, when you have a process that looks too
>>> much like you're just handing it off, you might as well not even bother
>>> with
>>> the formality of election.  Just might as well go ahead and crown
>>> Riccobono
>>> king of the movement.  I just do not feel terribly comfortable with the
>>> way
>>> things look like they're going to happen.  Call me a traitor to the
>>> movement
>>> if you will:  but,  'Tain't no skin off my nose.  Look, this procedure
>>> just
>>> don't set to well with me.
>>>
>>> I ain't sayin that President Mauer can't support whom he pleases,
>>> and I ain't sayin he can not publically say whom he supports nor that he
>>> can't urge the members to back his choice:  But, to just do a hand off
>>> and
>>> have the election as a mere formality really bugs me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my Mac, the only computer with full accessibility for the blind
>>> built-in!
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray, still a very happy Mac and Iphone 5 user!
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2013, at 5:01 PM, Paul Wick <wickps at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ray that's how things have always been in the Federation In the world
>>>> of the organized blind there is an organization that while it lacks
>>>> transparency has a strong program, while another has democratic forms,
>>>> but is kind of an empty suit when it comes to the programming
>>>> department; I would rather be part of the former than the latter. I
>>>> wish President-designate Riccobono well, and may he reach out to all
>>>> the unaffiliated blind people rather than just preaching to the choir.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 12/1/13, Ray Foret Jr <rforet7706 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> I should like to pint out that there seems to be an assumption upon
>>>>> the part of the top NFB leadership that Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Riccobono will sort of just be given the presency of the federation.
>>>>>> That strikes me as not being the proper democratic way to do things.
>>>>>> To assume that just because Doctor Maurer personally supports Mark
>>>>>> Riccobono for president he will just sort of be handed the
>>>>>> presidency by Dr. Maurer and the election of Mark Riccobono a mere
>>>>>> formality strikes me as being very improper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Mac, the only computer with full accessibility for the
>>>>> blind built-in!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray, still a very happy Mac and Iphone 5
>>>>> user!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2013, at 12:44 PM, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>> Riccobono
>>>>>