On more than one occasion the charge has been
made that the ASA is being ruled by a dictatorship. In a democratic
organization such as the ASA this is a serious charge, and one that could cause
the disintegration of the association if it were substantiated with facts.
In a recent letter, published in the Stonehenge News Letter, Lucille Hansen states that the Circle H Ranch has pulled out of the ASA and that she has resigned her position as ASA Trustee. She also states that, in her opinion, the ESA is now being run by a group of dictators.
An officer of Restful Haven, writing in the recent issue of the club's bulletin, asks whether or not the club might not be better served by leaving the ASA and joining another association.
These may only be “straws in the wind” but they should serve as a warning to the officers and trustees of the ASA that there is some dissatisfaction with the present methods of operation. They should make it their business to find out why rumblings of discontent keep cropping up from time to time.
Anyone who has attended an ASA Convention as a delegate knows that there is a tremendous amount of power concentrated in the hands of a very few people. The delegates from the big clubs, who carry as many as 25 or 30 votes each, can easily outvote the combined delegations from a dozen small clubs. The result is that frequently representatives from small clubs complain about the “big boys” and their “power block” controlling the convention. This is not to say that delegates from the smaller clubs are necessarily dissatisfied with the results of the voting, they just don't like two or three people having so much power.
Fortunately, there are some safeguards
contained in the ASA Constitution and Bylaws, although they may not always be
exercised to the best advantage. The limiting rule, that no one delegate can
carry more than 30 votes unless he represents a club large enough to have more
votes, is good. Possibly the situation would be improved if this figure were
reduced one-third, but this would still allow a delegate from the biggest club
to command a great deal of power.
The complaint that the delegates from the big
clubs constitute a “power block” is valid. There have been times when major
issues coming before the convention were decided ahead of time by half a dozen
delegates who agreed which way they would vote. This has the unfortunate effect
of making delegates from smaller clubs feel that there is a dictatorship, and
that their votes are of little value. This is a mistaken viewpoint. All votes
are valuable, as the minority vote is a registration of those not in agreement.
This is democracy in action.
The only sensible solution to offset the “power
block” is for all clubs to elect delegates to the convention and to name a
delegation from another club to carry their proxy votes in case their own
elected delegates are unable to attend. Too many clubs neglect doing this and
are not represented by anyone at the convention. Any club that doesn't care
enough to take advantage of the regulations in the ASA Constitution and bylaws
which guarantees its right of representation has no right to complain.
Becoming disgusted and pulling the club out of
the ASA is no solution. This merely weakens the structure of the only democratic
nudist organization we have. Admittedly, there are things wrong with the ASA,
but it is still the main bulwark of defense against the enemies of nudism. The
fight goes on, in Iowa and Tennessee, to protect our way of life. Let's work
together for strength through unity.
Ernie Detwiller, Editor
(Source: The Bulletin, Volume 14, No.
12, December 1965)
No comments:
Post a Comment