[nfb-talk] My Thoughts, state con attendance

[T. Joseph Carter]

Mike,

I'm not sure that we should go expelling people from the Federation
without solid proof of misconduct, but we can certainly suggest that
evidence to that effect is grounds for suspension from official duties
within the organization pending a proper investigation.

Part of the reason, I think, that the NFB constitution is so vague as it
relates to what constitutes conduct unbecoming a Federationist is that the
alternative to doing so would be to try and write out all possible things
a person could do and try to come up with a way to objectify the line
between behaviors that are simply bad and those that are truly heinous.

Let's explore this through the hypothetical.

Certainly, making personal purchases with Federation money and hoping that
nobody will ever notice is abusive and disgraceful.  But, if I should
happen to accidentally spend the $5 in my wallet comes from a fund raising
activity and be temporarily unable to repay it until next week, the
chances are pretty good that there is no lasting harm.  If this happens
exactly once, in time my error would be forgotten completely.

If however thousands of dollars that belong to the Federation mysteriously
aren't there and you find that I suddenly have shiny new Braille display
that my friendly state agency would not purchase?  Even if the "error" was
discovered and repaid the same day, I would expect that I should be
immediately relieved of my duties involving NFB funds, pending a pretty
serious investigation about what happened.

Probably in this case, no matter what happens, I'm not going to be invited
to manage Federation money ever again.  If somehow the infraction were the
result of gross ineptitude (though I cannot imagine how) and immediately
repaid, I expect I would be not be invited to continue managing Federation
funds, and would never again be offered that responsibility.

If however my action was found to be deliberate, I should be ejected from
the NFB on the spot without question, no matter what I do to make amends.
Criminal charges would also be in order in this case.


Now, let's get specific for a counter-example.

I know a vocal person who claims membership in the NFB, but who I would
say is certainly no Federationist.  This person has spoken up against many
of the major points of our philosophy on many occasions.  I have known a
few who question the viewpoint of the Federation solely for the purpose of
getting people to discuss the issues and really come to a deeper
understanding of what we mean by the things we say.  This person is not
doing that, though.

The impact on the Federation is not insignificant.  To hear the person in
question speak suggests that the blind are something that the Federation
suggests we are not.  Should he be expelled?  I do not believe so, because
one of the foundational principles of the Federation is the right of blind
people to have their voice be heard.  That doesn't apply only when a
person says what I want to hear.

This person has every right to be an ignorant blowhard.  As long as no
intentional effort is made to misrepresent the Federation, this person can
make an ass of him/herself as much as he/she likes.  Do people see this
person and wonder about the Federation as a result?  Possibly.  But then,
it is our responsibility to represent the Federation more accurately both
through our numbers and the quality of the example we set.  We are a
cross-section of humanity, after all.

I myself have been critical of the Federation once or twice.  You might
remember my stand on changing the currency is that although the tactics of
the ACB leave much to be desired, we should seize upon this opportunity to
do something about it, over time, in a manner that reduces the financial
impact of a currency change as much as possible.  I said we should do it
not because we must--we have alternatives, after all.  I said we should do
it because it's the right thing to do.

Many agreed with me.  Not enough to change the Federation's stand on the
issue, certainly, but enough to have some healthy debate on the issue.  My
opinion wasn't changed, and if it comes up again, I hope to sway more
people with good arguments.  Dissenting voices are the means through which
we change and grow as an organization.


The topic of misconduct is one area that anything resembling the legal
system would fall flat.  Such a system must necessarily apply equally to
all cases.  When determining how we respond as the National Federation of
the Blind, however, we must consider several factors including the
legality and morality of an action, the direct impact of that action on
the Federation, and the impact of the act on the perception of the
Federation held by others.

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 12:40:42PM -0800, Mike Freeman wrote:
> One more thing to add to what Jim says:
>  
> Part of the impetus for the original "Civil War" was that some of the NFB ledership of that day aspired to being NFB President but found themselves up against a vote getter, Dr. tenBroek, who, like FDR, would win any election he ran in. These discontented leaders were exploited by reactionary agencies bent upon sewing mischief and mayhem within NFB; they succeeded for a while but ultimately failed.
>  
> One other point: Jim writes of Bob Acosta's expulsion from NFB. It is a matter of record that he co-mingled NFB of California money with his own. Likewise, when he was in ACB, he misused some of their money, making credit card purchases on their dime. Needless-to-say, they weren't much happier with him ultimately than were we. (grin)
>  
> An interesting point: what if we were to be more specific in our constitutions and specify that a person must be convicted in a court of law of an offense before it was actionable as an expulsion ground. What do we do in the meantime? Put starkly, had O J been a NFB member, would the fact that the jury acquitted him in the criminal trial have forced us to keep him even though he were a liability?
>  
> All I'm saying is that when one deals with the real world, things are more complex than idealists would like.
>  
> Mike
>