[Nfb-editors] In terms of addressing and questioning NFB policies

[Wunder, Gary]

Historically we had people, leaders and staff, who would go to Congress and other officials and say, "Well, that's the national's policy, but there's no problem here with NAC. Our Association for the Blind is a good one and it just gets NAC because it is a nice piece of paperwork to have. You know the national--always in a bother about something."

If someone wants to influence the policy of the Federation, they have every right to write to the president, the board, affiliate leaders, and anyone they wish, but they don't have the right to say "Well, I'm a Federation president, but we here in Missouri don't agree."

It is easy to agree with the collective when it does as I wish. It is harder to agree with the collective when it doesn't share my opinion. It is at these times I am tested.

Gary

 
-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-editors-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Bridgit Pollpeter
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:00 PM
To: nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Nfb-editors] In terms of addressing and questioning NFB policies

I think most of us agree change can be good, and growth is essential for any organization to survive.

I understand why the Federation opposes members speaking against policies and procedures set by the organization in public forums.

While I may question this opposition in as far as politics and freedom of speech is concerned, as a Federationist, I understand the necessity to stand as a united front.

We all have the opportunity to engage our leadership in conversation, and these discussions allow us an outlet to express concerns, voice questions and inform ourselves on NFB reasoning.  After all, during each convention, Dr. Mauer makes himself available at certain times for anyone to speak with him.

I also feel certain email list-- not all-- can be forums for these discussions to exist as well.  Many of our leadership have a presence on these list, and they may be able to provide information and explanations.  And discussion among our peers creates a democratic environment as well in which to learn and grow.

I ask a question purely out of curiosity so please do not read more into this.  What is the concern with members voicing questions or problems with NFB policy outside the organization?  I often hear the argument comparing the NFB to Democrats and Republicans, and how we can not be
both-- we must choose one.  True, however, individuals in the Democratic and Republican parties are allowed to speak against happenings within their own party, and this is done without censure.  I have read our NFB Constitution and know the policy and consequences for such behavior, but I am curious as to why we established this.

Again, I see the wisdom in being unified, and realize we have a philosophy and foundation to preserve, but is speaking against some actions deemed more harmful than others?

For instance, if a member opposes a lawsuit the NFB has taken on-- for sake of this discussion, let's say the lawsuit against the universities using non-accessible technology.  (By the way, I am fully on board with this).  If one of us raises vocal questions about this, even though it is a NFB decision, how exactly is it detrimental to the organization?

Or if someone finds fault with our Braille legislation, again, should they vocalize their concerns, how does this affect the organization as a whole?

Are we worried one opposition may lead others to form the same opinion?
Is there fear of internal damage to the organization?

Again, I bring this up out of curiosity as well as to better understand our policies.

Bridgit


_______________________________________________
Nfb-editors mailing list
Nfb-editors at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfb-editors:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-editors_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40nfb.org