To the Braille Forum Editor:
The article in the June Braille Forum by Charlie Crawford, “Expanding Our ACB Democracy,” evoked feelings of frustration that have bothered me for years. I have attended 19 ACB national conventions since 1976. I have also had the opportunity to know many leaders and would-be leaders and the workings of our national office. I’m impressed and appreciative at the amount of hard work that gets accomplished under the most difficult of circumstances and lack of guidance.
I am a firm believer in the democratic principles of ACB, but am fed up with some of the current practices. For years I have been distressed by the behavior of some folks during the general sessions of the convention. I’ve also been less than proud of some of our elected and appointed leaders. I strongly believe that there needs to be significant change in the ACB election process. Lately I and some of my friends have been totally turned off by the conduct of many who subscribe to the ACB-L Internet list. Please let me share the reasons for my feelings.
Effective democracy depends on more than just allowing folks to say whatever they wish whenever they wish, and as many times as they wish. Where there is limited time for a large number of people, democracy depends on folks making clear and thoughtful presentations and then allowing for others to do the same. Democracy does not work well when folks with new or differing opinions are shouted down. If some folks with strong voices and ardent opinions are allowed through repetition to bully more tentative folks, democracy will not work. When votes are taken by only a relative few and without thorough knowledge, then those votes are defective.
Let me ask your readers to answer these questions. How can blind convention voters become aware of the comparative neatness and cleanliness of potential leaders? Conversely, how can we be informed of candidates who are unkempt with food-stained clothing and offensive hygiene, or those who dress inappropriately? How can voters become aware of those folks who have been given leadership responsibilities and who have procrastinated and done next to nothing? I know from my own experience that we have had and continue to elect leaders who fit these descriptions.
ACB-L should be an open forum for ideas and opinions. However, with a potential subscriber list of thousands, it must be managed much as a convention. I and others are not interested in spending hours each day deleting the same messages from the same few people who seem to have nothing better to do with their lives. How many times can one person be allowed to whine and whimper while saying the same thing, forcing all who subscribe to waste time listening and then deleting his/her message? The list should be for all voices to be heard once and maybe twice. Silencing a pest who disrupts the effectiveness of the list is not an infringement on freedom of speech. If others believe as I do that the national convention and ACB-L mailing list need to be made more attractive for busy and active folks who would like to participate, then how can they be better managed? We could probably get some interesting suggestions for improvement if all ACB officers and board members took an oath to read all ACB-L messages each day. A quick look at the 205 e-mail addresses on ACB-L suggests only two officers, four board members, two BOP members, and two ACB office staff are currently subscribed. If ACB is ever to achieve its potential as a representative democratic organization for blind and visually impaired people, there must be an opportunity for thousands to speak and be heard, and there must be a reasonable expectation that ACB leadership will be able to listen. ACB must grow in membership and do so exponentially. If there are several million people in this nation who are blind or visually impaired, what can we do to become a forum for more than just a few hundred?
— Bud Keith, grateful recipient of the George Card Award, Arlington, Va.