[Blindtlk] Democracy in the NFB

[David Andrews]

Brian:  I think you and Steve Jacobson have sumed up things well, and 
explained why things are the way they are.  I think that if something 
was really out of kilter, then enough people wouled be unhappy enough 
to elect somebody else.

NFB is a political organization.  The people with power are the 
people who can get things done.  They can deliver people to the table 
to work on the goals of the NFB.  Sometimes  the people who complain 
are people without constituencies.  It is easier to complain and 
harder to do the work, day in and day out, so you get in a leadership 
position.

Dave


>Good morning all,
>
>I certainly agree with Mike about term limits -- they are a blunt instrument
>to deal with a complicated problem.  Term limits are unnecessary so long as
>there are effective and inclusive mechanisms for democratic change and
>meaningful choices to be made on the part of the electorate.
>
>It is true that nominations can always be offered from the floor, but the
>reality is that they are rare, and no one can deny that when they happen the
>response by the voting members is generally one of surprise and nervousness.
>The vast majority of our slates at all levels of the organization are
>elected without opposition and by unanimous consent.
>
>This is not a value statement, but simply an observation.  This topic arises
>with some regularity, there is some hand-wringing on the listservs, and then
>it quietly goes away.  Again, this is not a value statement, but an
>observation.  I think at some point we must recognize that this is a choice
>made at some level by the conventions that expresses a preference for
>stability, unity, and clarity of message and purpose over change, potential
>uncertainty, and democratic competition.  I think most of us are cognizant
>of the historical reasons for our organizational culture and practices, and
>that for some time the way leadership change occurs in the NFB serves as a
>stabilizing force.  The degree to which this culture represents the will of
>the organization and its leadership may change, and other priorities, other
>practices may become the norm, but for now, and for some time, this is where
>we are at.
>
>We have a process, it's relatively open, and it appears to represent the
>preferences of the organization overall.  Is it a process that emphasizes
>choice, as reflected in campaigns between candidates with platforms and
>alternative viewpoints about the direction of the organization?  No,,
>clearly not.  It is a democratic process that values consensus over
>procedures that preference the secret ballot and individual decision-making.
>The expression of the slate is one of continuity, and confidence of the
>skills and commitment on the part of those in leadership with respect to
>those who might follow.
>
>Choosing one preference over another is a value choice -- what is it as an
>organization that we value most?  How well do our procedures and practices
>serve these values?  I think these are the questions we need to grapple
>with.  What do we gain, what do we lose by choosing one path over another?
>And this isn't to say that the paths never intertwine and crisscross -- most
>organizations are a hybrid, and I think the NFB is no exception.
>
>My preference would be to see the development of a more supportive
>environment for the civil competition for leadership positions, where
>individuals can make their interest in serving known and share with the
>membership their vision for the future of the chapter, affiliate, or
>national organization.  I appreciate that individuals can do this now, but
>it is not a choice individuals can make without undue consideration of the
>interests of the nominating committees.  I think there are ways to do this
>without the undue risk of fractiousness and dissention, although there are
>certainly some dangers of this occurring.  The flipside is that the
>membership might feel more empowered by the process and less like passive
>recipients of decisions made by those in leadership positions.  For now, the
>process is more subtle -- there is no question in my mind that the
>leadership carefully considers its choices, and would not propose a
>candidate that is wildly at odds with the desires or concerns of the
>membership.  It is just that the process of vetting is a more amorphous and
>less obvious one than that which might occur in the context of the kinds of
>campaigns that we see in the political system as a whole.
>
>Just my thoughts,
>
>Brian M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>Freeman
>Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 5:12 PM
>To: 'Blind Talk Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Democracy in the NFB
>
>The President of the U.S. only got stuk with the term limit because the
>Republicans were damned jealous of FDR and didn't think they could come up
>with a viable candidate to oppose him.
>
>As I say, term limits are a dumb idea and, in effect, say "choose for me
>because I ain't smart enough to choose for myself".
>
>Mike Freeman
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ericka
>Short
>Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 8:07 AM
>To: Blind Talk Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Democracy in the NFB
>
>Paul and all,
>
>I like the idea of two candidates for each office.  When there is one for
>each office as it usually is at my church the same people run and are
>elected not because they are good still at what they do.  They are elected
>because either nobody  wants o run against them or nobody feels like their
>voice matters so why run.  Just one person changing off the board doesn't
>change the attitude unless they are a very stong but tactful person.  I'm
>still hoping my church finds that person. There should be an finite amout of
>
>times someone can run and hold office too.  I see that as a problem in small
>
>time politics.  If it's good for the President of the US, then nobody else
>should have that opportunity to run two consecutive times and serve, take a
>year off then serve another two times after winning their terms back.  That
>defeats the purpose.  Nobody should have a lifetime service spot.  I think
>it  allows them to  stop speaking for the collective voice and  usher in
>their personal agendas.  It's just a matter of  following bylaws.  It might
>make more attend the  conventions too.  I know I don't feel like I have a
>voice in the NFB as a whole. Just here in listserves.