From: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Carla Campbell)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:09:18 GMT
Reply-To: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:129/89.0 - BlinkLink, Pittsburgh PA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23416

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

Hi, David.

Thanks for taking the time and thought to respond.

 DA> Carla,  Your point of examining the article to learn about what
 DA> others think of us is an interesting and good one, although
the   DA> BBS isn't necessarily the best place to do that, and certainly
 DA> isn't the only place where it can be done.

Nope, it isn't the only place, I know.  But it *is* a very grass-roots
communication medium on which rank and file can be heard as clearly as
they can write; as clearly  as anyone else. (one of the things I've
always liked about BBSs.) and I thought that organizational image might
be something which rank & file members might be especially qualified to
discuss, since they are the ones who really go out into the
"communities" and recruit, impress, depress, and otherwise interact with
non-members.

Sure, the head offices hear the voices of the people who feel strongly
enough to write letters or make nasty phone calls, but do they hear the
voices of the people who are, as I said, *potential members*?  Do they
know what *they* think?  Seems to me that the NFB-Net would be a prime
place to receive feedback on members' encounters and discussions with
non-members.

 DA> You state that internal debate is not tolerated.

Hey, wait! In the interest of responsible reeporting, I didn't "state"
that.  I stated that that is what I have been told by ex-members and
current members.  I have no means by which to "state" it, outright,
having not been a member who tried to debate anything/got supressed.
I'll get back to you if I ever am in a position to know for certain.
(I predict I'd last about a week. ;-) )

DA> Once
 DA> a matter has been voted upon and a resolution is passed, public
 DA> debate is tolerated, but private debate goes on all the time.

I suppose I am a little confused.  It's ok to "debate" a matter, once it
has been resolved and a policy has been set on it?  Up until that time,
who decides what will go on the ballot to be voted *on*? I dunno.... I'm
sort of into democracy, and while I understand the need for a united
front and a public face on things, I have a difficult time understanding
where the NFB/its members draw the line between "public" and "private,"
when it comes to debating issues and policies before they are set in
stone.

 DA> Dr. Jernigan has called me up any number of times, or asked me
 DA> when I am in his office, what I thought about this or that.

Did you ever disagree with him?  Did it matter? (this is not meant as an
attack. I am merely personally curious.) I also wonder if Joe Blindguy
in Kalamazoo's opinions matter.  You, after all, are well-known to the
officers and are an integral part of the organization, so I am hardly
surprised that you have been asked for opinions-- especially in areas
where you have an existing reputation for knowledge.

DA> He
 DA> does regularly and systematicly gather opinions on a variety of
 DA> subjects.

I'm glad to hear it.  That partlly answers my question, above; though I
still wonder from whom the opinions are gathered.

DA>   I was also able to sit in on part of the NFB Board
 DA> meeting this past Thanksgiving and I can assure you that things
 DA> were debated vigorously and thoroughly.

Again, I am unsurprised that such debate does take place behind closed
doors at such a high level.  Of *course* it does.  Cloning hasn't been
perfected yet and so people are bound to have some differences of
opinion.  It's the level at which it seems to occur (and, again, I say
"seems", as I have only second-hand perceptions to base mine upon) which
would concern me.

 DA> You as an employee of Telesensory can't say or do what you want
 DA> without impunity.  It is the same for the NFB or any other
 DA> organization.

oops. a coupla points here:

1. I'm not an employee of TeleSensory these days. I quit my job there at
the beginning of the year.

2. I don't think of a corporation and an interest group/consumer
organization in the same way at all.  To keep one's job, in many
organizations, it is true that one must "toe the party line" in public
(and sometimes in private, too.)  But that is no longer as true as it
once was.  More enlightened companies are listening closely to their
employee's criticisms; especially those of the "front-line" folks who
meet the customers face-to-face.

It is in the interest of the company to maintain a policy prohibiting
public criticism of the company.  it is not done because it is in the
interest of the employees, per sae. (though it could be argued that what
is in the interest of the company is in the interest of the employees,
this argument will only go so far when you consider that the company may
not *know* its best interests.)

But should a non-commercial, non-corporate  organization have a "best
interest" separate from the best interest of its members, in the same way
a corporation does?  I thought the organization *was* its members. "of"
the blind and all that.

The "members" of a company are its stockholders.  The "members" of an
organization are, presumably, everyone who pays their dues.

                                                 --Carla

... Read what I mean, not what I write!

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!89.0!Carla.Campbell
Internet: Carla.Campbell@p0.f89.n129.z1.fidonet.org