hello,

in a message not too long ago on this list, i brought up the idea of
how the almost instantaneous nature of communications with the
internet will change how the blindness advocacy groups conduct
themselves.   as an example, we looked at the nfb mailing list blind
talk, from which people had been excluded because they had discussed
what appeared to them as an election rigging, hatched up at the
national level, to direct the results in a state election.   once the
first example of election rigging had been brought up, other instances
of the same kind of thing, approximately 8,  were brought to light. in
addition to elections, other practices previously kept in the closet
began to come out for membership consideration. it became clear to the
participants that the computer and the internet had changed forever
the old autocratic tactics of the nfb leadership.  leaving aside
questions of fraudulent election practices, the nfb leadership didn't
want anything but praise from the membership.   it was either don't
question the quality and principles on which leadership was based, or
speak not at all.  it was that they alone were in a position to know
what was best for the membership and other views were not welcome and
should just go pound salt, quietly of course. in the past, before
computers, they could rely upon relative isolation largely preventing
such news getting around and causing a negative backlash.  even if
someone questioned those or any issues, the complete control over the
means of internal communication would permit that the discussion would
be squashed and the person would suffer retaliation.   the nfb
constitution specifically provides the leadership unilateral power,
without due process, to toss out anyone they think are speaking in a
context and manner of which they don't personally approve.  so, in the
old days, such things as election rigging and autocratic practices
were only whispered about among trusted friends and was kept local,
and anyone speaking up publicly was at the total mercy of a handful of
fellow nfb members who held national office.

when the people were banned from the list, this only sparked more
discussion on other nfb lists and brought as never before into public
consideration the moral principles on which nfb leadership was based.  one
member posted a message blasting the banning practice and said their plan
to donate money would be changed.  that person was contacted directly by
the president with a letter saying that the money part should have not
been included because it might encourage others to stop their donation
plans.  they were told to be a good soldier and be quiet and go along with
what the nfb leadership had decided.  in the last few days, it happened
again. having only partially learned the lesson of the new internet based
reality, they recently banned those who were publicly continuing to
discuss the quality and motivation of nfb leadership, from all nfb mailing
lists.  but, there was one difference this time.  it was done off line
with a message to each person.  they had learned that the price of doing
it where all could observe and question was far too high.  let us contrast
this with the situation in the acb where the computer based communication
revolution has been experienced much differently.  i should mention that i
belong to neither group.  in that group, the president participates
personally on the mailing list and is publicly responsible for the praise
and lumps alike, directly from the membership.  in addition, he has a
personal email address to which members can sent messages, and he
responds.  this is unlike the nfb president who is computer illiterate,
seemingly to be almost proud to be so, who doesn't have to be available to
the membership except as he alone wants it.  if there is some questioning
message in the acb president's email in box, the nfb president has no
concern that he will ever have to be bothered by such.  this attitude is
in line with the attitude of some on the nfb lists.  they say that most
members don't have computers and they don't have to care if revealing
information about the leadership is exchanged on the internet.  but one
must even question this attitude for accuracy. there must be at least a
few in each chapter who do use the internet and telephones are used by
those locally who don't.  the attendance at the nfb convention was down
from over 3300 last year to just a bit over 2000 this year. while one may
speculate if this sharp down turn had nothing to do with the election
rigging discussion, which occurred before the convention, there is another
bit of data which suggests it did have an impact. last year the delegation
from the state in which the election rigging is thought to have occurred
was 150, while this year it was 30.  it seems people do vote with their
feet.  thus, while the acb embraces the enhanced communication and
information exchange of the internet, the nfb fights to retain the status
quo and tries to manage information flow as before. it doesn't take an old
testament prophet to see wherein the future lies. the computer and the
internet have changed forever the way advocacy groups will do business.
one can only speculate on what changes will be coming in this area.  in
the near future, tv top sets affordable to all will make internet based
communications the normal situation in all households.  which of the two
attitudes discussed above will best serve blindness advocacy as we go into
the 21st century? which of the two ways of treating members will prevail?
which will become the norm,declaring the leaders know best, or having
leaders receiving direct feedback from the membership via electronic
communications and acting accordingly? will the knowledge and experience
of the membership as feedback be seen as a valued resource on which to act
effectively, or will it be something to avoid; least it challenge the
leader's self image andautocratic power?  leaving these two groups as
examples aside, on what moral principles do you want advocacy to be based
and what part do you think an internet informed membership in any group
will play, in the future of the practices of that group? computers have
changed all of the lives of blind folk, and will continue to do so in ways
we can't even begin to see, as individuals and as groups.

dan dunfee


VICUG-L ARCHIVES     http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
INDEX of VICUGS		 http://trfn.clpgh.org/vipace/vicug/vicugs.html
SUBSCRIPTION FORM     http://trfn.clpgh.org/vipace/vicug/subscribe.html