by Paul Edwards
I am writing this message on the Monday after one of our most successful conventions in the history of the ACB. I can tell you that I, like probably all of our members and visitors who came together in convention in Louisville, feel a combination of exhilaration and exhaustion at the prospect of returning to the “real,” post-convention world. I have returned to in-boxes and voice-mail boxes overflowing with work that has stacked up in my absence and that demands my immediate attention.
During coming weeks, I am already planning to devote some time and energy to the much anticipated convention issue of “The Braille Forum,” and considering my accumulated work-load and my state of post-convention exhaustion, it is tempting to postpone any discussion of all the issues that came up during convention week until that later time. However, I think it’s important to spend some time at this moment reflecting on a particular event that occurred this year, and on the very satisfactory outcome of that situation.
This event was essentially an attempt by a minority of our members to utilize the resolutions process to overturn a decision which our board of directors had made, unanimously, and with indisputable constitutional authority, at its February meeting. The resolutions were determined, by the chair of the convention (me), and by the assembled membership (the convention) to be constitutionally inadmissible. As chair of the convention, I ruled that allowing these resolutions to come to the convention would be a violation of the ACB constitution, and the membership assembled in convention agreed with my decision by an overwhelming majority. I believe that the way our convention resolved this matter represents a triumph of the democratic principles which govern this organization. The outcome has reaffirmed for me my appreciation for the wisdom of those who framed our constitution, as well as my faith in the tolerance and the wisdom of our membership.
History and Context
The ACB was formed because many members of the National Federation of the Blind had come to perceive that democracy as they had known it had disappeared from the NFB. When these, the first members of the American Council of the Blind, set out to create our constitution, they were therefore understandably careful to take every possible precaution to ensure that no clique would ever assume dominance over the membership of ACB — as had happened in the NFB.
The convention was made the supreme governing authority of the ACB, with the board of directors taking on that authority between conventions. The board of directors was given sole authority to approve, or reject, the chartering of ACB affiliates. When ACB first hired someone to execute the will of our convention, that person was called “the national representative,” not (until the Greensboro convention, five years ago) did the title change to “executive director.” The constitution made it clear that the ACB would be — at best — a loose confederation. Very little power was given, either to the national office, or the board of directors.
Even as we took steps to give our executive director and our board of directors the authority to take more decisive steps to execute the will of our conventions, we took precautions to safeguard and guarantee the rights and responsibilities of our disparate affiliates. A document — six years in the making — which delineates those rights and responsibilities, at all levels, was presented to affiliate presidents assembled at mid-year and adopted by the board of directors at the mid-year meeting.
This document will be online at the ACB web site before the end of the summer, and its authors are working on a summary description of its major elements to be published in a future issue of “The Braille Forum.”
ACB board members and our elected officers have always had constitutionally mandated term limits — to ensure that the organization, and the leadership, dependably receive periodic transfusions of new blood and new ideas.
The framers of the ACB constitution also established a board of publications to ensure that neither the national representative nor his staff, nor the board of directors, nor the elected officers of ACB, could control what is published in “The Braille Forum.” This organizational design ensures, therefore, that minority viewpoints will always have a mechanism, and a medium, to speak, and to be heard.
So, the constitution guarantees that power will always reside within our membership; that there is balance between the power exercised by ACB officers and board members, and the staff hired to execute the will of the members; and that every voice can be heard, every idea evaluated.
The resolutions process, which was designed to give members a say in making ACB policy, further augments the rights of our individual members. Our constitution and bylaws state that any resolution which comes to our resolutions committee must — unless it is withdrawn during the process of give-and-take which directs resolutions to the floor of the convention — be sent to the floor for discussion and debate. Therefore, the resolutions process ensures that any ACB member who wants to take issue with anything that is happening within the organization has a vehicle to express his/her discontent.
No one in ACB’s leadership has the power to prevent an issue from being referred to the membership. The resolutions committee can, and does, make recommendations to the convention regarding the advisability of passing the resolutions which it brings to the floor. Most of the time, resolutions that make it through the committee are cooperatively amended, so that the committee can recommend a "do pass" to the membership. Sometimes resolutions are referred for action to other committees; a resolution can be sent forward with neither an affirmative nor a negative recommendation to the membership, and, very rarely, a resolution is reported out of committee with a suggestion that it should not be passed.
The Failure to Follow Procedure Resolutions
This year, a member introduced a resolution to invalidate a decision which had been made by the board of directors because, the “whereas” clauses in the resolution maintained, proper procedures with respect to advanced circulation of board meeting agendas had not been followed. The president — that’s me — is supposed to get agendas out to the board of directors at least 15 days before each meeting. During my presidency, I have seldom been able to do this.
The resolution stated that, because the agenda for the February board meeting had not been circulated 15 days in advance of that meeting, the unanimous decision which the board took at that mid-year meeting, to approve a special-interest affiliate’s application for affiliate status, should be overturned.
Since very few presidents in the history of ACB have met the requirement to provide meeting agendas more than two weeks in advance of scheduled board meetings, the resolution would have effectively called into question every decision ever taken by every ACB board of directors. For that reason alone, it was a dangerous proposal. That notwithstanding, however, I think there are implications in this minority attempt to overturn a decision of the ACB governing body that go far beyond even this dismaying prospect. Our constitution says that the convention is the supreme governing body of the organization. It also says that the convention has the authority to make decisions except where the constitution grants authority to other groups. The board of directors is the body that governs ACB between conventions and is that “other group” which is given authority to make decisions and to act on behalf of the organization. In addition, the board of directors is the only organizational entity which has been given the authority to approve, or reject, the chartering of affiliates. The resolution was a very dangerous thing because it would have taken all authority away from the board. If the board cannot act without looking over its shoulder to see if the convention is going to overturn its decisions, then the board will be paralyzed.
When this resolution and a less radical, but still dubious, companion resolution came to the floor, I chose to declare them out of order. I don't know if this is the first time this procedure has ever been utilized in the history of ACB. I do know it was the first time I have ever declared a resolution out of order. This is one of the more difficult decisions I have ever had to make. I felt I had no choice. Even though the resolutions committee had recommended that the first resolution not be passed, I felt, as president, that I had to protect the ability of the board to govern. Even to have allowed this resolution to be debated on the floor would have made ACB ungovernable. When I declared the resolution out of order, I made it clear to the membership that they had the right to appeal the decision of the chair, which, at that point, was me. There was a motion to do this which, after some debate, was overwhelmingly defeated. There were probably 1,200 people in the hall at the time and I would be surprised if more than 10 voted for the motion to appeal the decision I had made.
I want to let all of you know how happy that makes me. It suggests that, as a whole, our membership is happy with the balance of power as it now operates and realizes that our board must be allowed to govern.
Other Scenarios
Now, the persons who were displeased by the February decision which the board of directors made with respect to our newest special-interest affiliate had other opportunities to express their opinion, and to make their wishes known. I want to make it clear that a resolution could have been introduced deploring what the board had done. Expressing dissatisfaction with anything I do or with a decision made by the board is well within the powers the convention has. In fact, there were eight resolutions passed this year that did just that. The problem with this particular resolution and its companion was that it sought to allow the convention to tell the board to take back a legitimate action it had already taken unanimously because the board had failed to receive an agenda in time. That contention is vastly different from expressing disapproval of a specific board action. Our board meetings are open, and, as a guest, the individual who introduced this resolution could have asked to speak and raise his questions with the group who made the decision in the first place. In addition, a request could have been made through me or through any board member to have the board take up the person's concerns.
Furthermore, there are still avenues open to this — or any other — individual who is unhappy with any decision our board has made or any perceived direction our organization is going in. Our constitution sets term limits and conducts democratic elections so that the membership can express its dissatisfaction with board policies by electing people who will represent the kinds of policies they want. When we hold elections, we allow state or special-interest affiliates to hold caucuses where the candidates appear and answer any questions they are asked. We also hold a candidates’ forum at which all the candidates appear to answer questions the membership may have. In my view, the people have ample opportunity to put potential board members under a microscope to determine whether or not various candidates’ views are representative of those of the electorate, and if they have what it takes to be a part of our board of directors.
As I see it, ACB is an organization working to make life better for blind people throughout the world. We have a lot of work to do and do not have time to see ourselves divided into hostile camps. The president, the officers, the board, and the national office all need to be accountable to our members, and I believe that all the constitutional safeguards I have outlined in this message continue to guarantee that this is the case. I sometimes get a little discouraged about how often debates seem to speak in terms of “us” and “them.”
“The leadership doesn’t listen ... The national office doesn’t care ... There’s a clique of officers ... Special-interest affiliates are poor stepchildren ...” On and on the rhetoric goes.
I would like to see us working in a different way. Clearly nobody is perfect. I certainly am wrong not to have gotten agendas out to the board in advance, to cite just one example. Clearly all of us involved in ACB are interested in helping blind people. There really are opportunities for people to become board members and to serve on committees. Our resolution process and our Internet ACB Listserv give members lots of opportunities to tell the leadership what they like and don’t like. I hope that all of our members will think twice before they assume some giant conspiracy on the part of the leadership to stifle opinion or to shortchange members.
Conspiracy Theories
Let me give you a couple of examples of the rhetoric I have heard floating around, and the rumors that can take root and become alarming undercurrents before we collectively know what has hit us.
We were short of braille programs at this convention. This was because the company with whom we contracted produced only 400 of the 650 that were ordered. We did not realize this had occurred until we ran out of programs. There is no question that this situation was unfortunate but it was not an attempt to minimize the importance of braille. It was not a conspiracy to force people to use some other format. It was an unavoidable error and that’s all it was.
Just before the convention, there was a good deal of sound and fury on the ACB listserv, over the issue of whether we should put our convention program on the web site. I had received a gentle reminder that the board of directors had made a decision several years ago, that only people who had registered for the convention should get programs. There were good and substantial reasons for the board to have made this decision at the time that I won’t bore you with here. As a result of being reminded of this board decision on the books, I, as president, ruled that the program couldn’t be placed online.
Then the board of publications met and declared that our program is an official publication of ACB over which they have jurisdiction and indicated to me that they believed it belonged on our web site. I took the position that there was ample constitutional basis for the BOP’s decision and therefore ordered the program to go onto our site.
I must tell you that this led to some lively debate at our pre-convention board meeting and eventually led to an amendment of the constitution and bylaws making it clear that the board of publications has jurisdiction over the ACB program.
This is a great example of how governance happens. The board made a decision. The board of publications asked for a different one. The constitution and bylaws committee acted and the membership approved the change. Government is not a static thing. Our organization is evolving. I hope that everyone in ACB feels that he or she has power. Our officers, board members and staff should always be willing to listen. The resolutions process is another way to assure input. But, the resolutions process should not and cannot be subverted to allow a minority to wrest power from an entity, in this case the board of directors, which has the constitutionally mandated authority to govern.
The power of the people is paramount in ACB and that is as it should be. We have a system of checks and balances in place that works well and I am proud of the convention this year for recognizing that fact. As our organization gets bigger, it becomes harder and harder to be sure that every member feels empowered. One of the resolutions which came to the convention this year, which did pass overwhelmingly, asks me, and the board, to look at getting leadership training under way again. The board and I will be taking a serious look at doing that.
All who were at our convention this year affirmed that our system of government works. It does! You were right to do so! Thank you!