[Nfbmo] constitution question

[Gary Wunder]

Hi Bryan. We spend so much more time and energy trying to recruit than we do
to expel people that your question caught me a bit off guard. Anyone can
allege than anyone else has engaged in conduct unbecoming to a
Federationist. The standard for expulsion among caring people must be pretty
high.  You and I can disagree about the relative value of the blind driver
challenge, but that is no reason for me to try to throw you out and no
reason for you to try to throw me out.  Some of our members will disagree
about the merit of having a division for auto enthusiasts, but once the
issue is decided and we form a division, the debate is over.  Usually the
reason for expulsion is not that there is some area of disagreement
initially voiced, but that there continues to be dissension that is so
disruptive that it simply stifles further activity and the kind of warm and
caring spirit that draws people rather than pushes them away.

I remember our expelling one person because he hit on one of our more
vulnerable members who was naïve and mentally challenged enough that she did
not know how to combat his advances beyond saying no. Another member was
expelled when she tried to promote special housing for the blind in
violation of our policy of integrated housing. In this case the affiliate
did not expel but honored the wishes of the chapter to let them handle the
matter. There may have been more than two instances where expulsion was
required, but in my time since 1972, this issue just hasn't been very
problematic.  

Expulsion is never allowed to happen without a clearly relevant reason.  If
I like onions on my burger and you don't like the smell of onions, you can
bring a request that I be expelled on the grounds that you believe it is
unbecoming to a member of the federation that someone show up with onions in
his teeth.  There might be a lot of people who would privately agree that I
should brush, floss, and maybe even some who would take up a collection to
buy me some Listerine, but I don't think the issue of expulsion would have a
chance of passing.  If it did, of course, I would have every right to appeal
that expulsion.  If it happened in our chapter, I would appeal it to the
state board, to the state convention, and might, if the national Board chose
to consider it, appeal it all the way to them, look them straight in the
eye, and with my best onion breath make a long and impassioned presentation.
If I couldn't persuade them with my rational argument, I might bring them to
tears with my aural argument.

While there are certainly people who are problematic in meetings and who may
not always behave in a way that makes all of us comfortable, I think
everyone takes seriously the need for the National Federation of the Blind
to be here for anyone who can benefit from what we have to offer.  We can't
let anyone be so destructive that they threaten to destroy us, but we can't
be so intolerant that the federation ends up being only for people who are
very much like us, whatever we interpret that to mean.

Warmly,

Gary

  -----Original Message-----
From: nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Bryan Schulz
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 5:50 PM
To: nfbmo at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Nfbmo] constitution question

hi,

Out of curiosity, who is the parliamentarian of the affiliate and who
defines what "actions detrimental to the organization" or "conduct
unbecoming to a member of the Federation" mean?

Bryan Schulz
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthlink.net