by Christopher Gray
One of the most fascinating institutions within the American Council of the Blind is the ACB Board of Publications. It was created to safeguard a "free press" within ACB and founders and longtime members of the organization hold great faith in the ability and function of the BOP as a protecting agent in our democratic organizational framework and heritage.
At the 2002 pre-convention meeting of the ACB Board of Directors, questions were raised regarding whether the ACB board could regulate or require the BOP to be involved in certain committees or adhere to standards that might be set by entities outside of the BOP. On more than one occasion in the past five years, the ACB convention has struggled with clarifying the responsibilities of the BOP and its role within the organization.
I believe the time has come for a new analysis of this body, its role, function, and what was intended for it by the founders of our organization. In fact, the analysis is really not "new" in the sense that there is no organizational analysis and precious little recorded history regarding the BOP in existence anywhere within the documentation that comprises the formal record of ACB.
I am devoting a multi-part series of articles over the next year to this topic. In this first article, an examination is undertaken of the relative positioning of the Board of Publications within the governing structure of ACB. Is the BOP as powerful as the assembled convention? Is the BOP as powerful as the ACB Board of Directors? What are the precise charges given to the BOP and from where do they emanate? What do earlier ACB documents tell us about the structure and reasons for existence of this organizational entity? Let us first consider the BOP and the ACB convention.
Fortunately, we have quite clear guidance here from our primary governing document: the ACB Constitution. This topic is clearly addressed in Article V, Section A: "A. The annual convention of this organization shall be the ultimate authority within this organization on all matters except those matters delegated herein or in the Bylaws to the final authority or discretion of the Officers, the Board of Directors, or standing committees." It is easily concluded from this that the convention of ACB constitutes the supreme authority within the organization. This leaves us with a very complex question regarding the relationship between the ACB Board of Directors, standing committees in general, and the Board of Publications in particular. In the remainder of this analysis, I will attempt to consider the variety of issues that surround the relationship between the ACB Board of Directors and the ACB Board of Publications.
First and foremost, it must be said that the relationship is intended to be cooperative and mutually supportive in nature. The ACB Board of Publications was established to foster organizational cohesiveness. There is no documentary evidence that suggests any other type of basic relationship between the BOP and any other entity within ACB.
Beginning with some historical facts, it should be noted that while BOP is often spoken of as one of the basic safeguards within ACB against abuses of freedom of the press, it is equally true that this "safeguard" was not created at the time of the creation of ACB. Thus, it cannot accurately be claimed that the function of the BOP was considered by the founders of ACB to be either central or "key" to proper, democratic functioning of the organization. In ACB's original Constitution and By-Laws, By-Law 7 contained descriptions of several standing committees. The Board of Publications was designated in Part C of By-Law 7 and its membership was entirely appointed by the president. (Braille Forum, October 1962.) There is virtually no documentary evidence regarding the reasons for breaking out a description of the BOP into a separate bylaw, nor is there any writing in "The Braille Forum" or elsewhere of which we know that spells out the scope and operational parameters of the BOP. The only written record we have of the change of BOP from a typical standing committee to a committee in which three members are elected by the convention is contained in a letter from Durward McDaniel to Floyd Qualls that mentions the change in By-Law 7 from the Chicago convention of 1963, and informs Qualls that he was elected as one of the three elected members under the new structure (though he was not in attendance at the convention).
However, it must also be pointed out that there had been some controversy between 1961 and 1963, when the BOP was reconstituted, with regard to editorial matters within the organization. Some problems were personal in nature. For example, Marie Boring was the first editor of "The Braille Forum," and it is relatively well-known that some degree of mistrust existed between Boring and George Card, due to some of his actions while editor of "The Braille Monitor" within the period 1957-1960. Notwithstanding this fact, Card was an associate editor of the Forum, working side by side with Boring, and remained so until February 1982.
In addition to such unavoidable personal issues that can arise from time to time in any organization, it should be noted, and ACB has always been mindful of the fact that our publication may be the single most important thing we do to communicate with one another and to bring our message to the world in general. Such a mission cannot be performed adequately by a board of directors. To have the assistance of a board of publications is a complementary and helpful mechanism for the administration of an organization.
Finally with regard to historical perspective, it must be kept in mind that the board of publications was formed at a time when ACB did not have a paid editor and was barely able to produce a small magazine on a bi-monthly basis. In fact, in the early years of the Forum, the BOP was responsible for choosing editorial staffs, and no single person acted as editor. June Goldsmith, first chairperson of the BOP as it is presently constituted, refers to the editor of "The Braille Forum" working along with three editorial assistants. The editor was Marie Boring and her associate editors were Ned Freeman, Mary Jane Hills and George Card. (Braille Forum, September 1964.) It should be specifically noted here that in this case, a sitting president of ACB acted in an editorial capacity for "The Braille Forum." Here, as in many other ways, the alleged separation of "The Braille Forum" and the board of publications from the ACB Board of Directors in absolute or even significant terms does not align with the factual history of ACB.
Editors might well need advice, direction, and counsel on a variety of matters. Editors, with the exception of Durward McDaniel, who was acting editor between the death of Ned Freeman and the assumption of editorial duties by Mary Ballard, worked from their homes on a volunteer basis. Only during the course of Mary Ballard's editorship was a stipend initiated and later a minimal salary provided. These core items led to the creation of a BOP with regard to the functioning of "The Braille Forum." Support for the editor, support of communication, and a mechanism to try and take as much personality as possible out of the day-to-day affairs of the magazine were key factors.
When considering the BOP, there is a second thread of history that must be considered. Perhaps the greatest single vehicle that fostered ACB's creation as an organization was the Braille Free Press. This magazine was created because dissident members of NFB could gain no voice in their magazine. There is no question that the collective leadership of ACB at the time of its formation and at the time of the creation of the BOP believed in and wished to preserve a magazine that could publish many diverse points of view. There can be no question that a board of publications would be expected to play a significant role in preserving this freedom for the organization.
There is a final historical thread that weaves through this discussion and needs to be mentioned here. Many founders of ACB had very uncomfortable feelings toward fundraising brochures that had been distributed by Bernard Gershin in the name of the organization for fund-raising purposes. There was a widespread belief that a BOP could help to protect the "public face" of the organization. A BOP could act as a possible safety net against the dissemination of condescending, heart-wrenching materials that were not in keeping with the message about blindness that ACB members believed was appropriate for their organization to distribute. Taken together, all these elements coalesced and led in 1963 to the creation of the American Council of the Blind Board of Publications. Their existence was codified in By-Law 7. Note here that the BOP was not given the status of constitutional inclusion. This fact must be given some degree of significance when considering the true scope and power of this body.
The BOP is mentioned twice within the constitution. The first instance states that the election of a BOP member, as with a board member, must be by record vote. The first mention of any significance with regard to the BOP in the Constitution is in Article IV, Section D. It is in this section that a member of the BOP is allowed to hold a seat on the Board of Directors. Historically, this role was fulfilled by the editor. However, this was changed to align the organization with the Long Range Plan adopted by the ACB national convention in 1995. This change signified a notable decrease in the role and responsibilities of the editor position with regard to the governance of ACB and perhaps in other areas as well. The next mention of the BOP appears in Article IV, Officers, Section L. This section authorizes the board of directors of ACB to elect any vacancies of elected members to the BOP. It states in whole: "L. If a vacancy should occur between annual conventions in any elected position on either the Board of Publications or the Board of Directors, except in the offices of President or 1st Vice President, the Board of Directors shall, by a majority vote, elect an individual to serve in the position until the next annual convention. At this convention, if necessary, the membership shall elect a successor to serve for the remainder of the term. An officer, director, or member of the Board of Publications elected or succeeding to a position under the provisions of this section shall assume the duties of that position immediately upon election or succession."
To highlight the scope and power of the BOP, here is the bylaw as it exists in our present constitution that expressly authorizes BOP and prescribes its duties: "Bylaw 7 Publications Board: A. There is hereby created a Board of Publications consisting of five (5) members whose term of office shall be two (2) years. The Board shall be selected and constituted in the following manner: every odd-numbered year, the President, at the close of the annual convention, shall appoint a Chairperson and one (1) additional member of the Board; and every even-numbered year, the annual convention shall elect, by a majority vote in accordance with voting procedures contained in the Constitution or in the Bylaws, the three (3) remaining members of the Board, provided, however, that no Board member shall serve more than three (3) consecutive terms and no more than one (1) Board member shall be either appointed or elected to the Board of Publications from any one (1) state. It shall be the duty of the Board of Publications to approve or disapprove employment by the Executive Director of the Editor of 'The Braille Forum' and to establish editorial standards and policies applicable to all American Council of the Blind communication formats including: but not limited to, periodicals, the ACB convention programs and ACB brochures, the ACB web site, and ACB Radio. The Executive Director shall have the authority to dismiss the editor of 'The Braille Forum,' but only with the concurrence of the Board of Publications, after a hearing on the matter. A majority of the Board of Publications may agree to include an editor/producer of any nationally distributed Board of Publications project of the American Council of the Blind as an ex-officio member of the Board. The Board shall meet at least once each year, and more often if necessary, upon the call of the Chairperson or upon the request of not less than three (3) members of the Board of Publications. B. A member of the Board of Publications is considered to be from the state in which he/she maintains legal residency. A candidate for, or an appointee to, the position of member of the Board of Publications shall be considered to be from the state in which he/she maintains legal residency at the time of such election or appointment."
In evaluating what may or may not be in accordance with the ACB Constitution and Bylaws with regard to the failed motion or the remarks placed on the record by Charles Crawford, ACB executive director, it is only necessary to examine the prescribed duties of the BOP. These are: "It shall be the duty of the Board of Publications to approve or disapprove employment by the Executive Director of the Editor of 'The Braille Forum' and to establish editorial standards and policies applicable to all American Council of the Blind communication formats including: but not limited to, periodicals, the ACB convention programs and ACB brochures, the ACB web site, and ACB Radio." The only additional requirement that could be easily added to those listed above is the holding of at least one meeting per year. Based solely on the constitutional and bylaw references, there is no basis on which the board can be forbidden from providing instructions to the BOP. Given that the board of directors can elect a member to the BOP, there is a small suggestion that the board of directors is hierarchically above the board of publications.
For most of its history, the BOP has considered this to be the case and has acted accordingly as demonstrated elsewhere in this document. Before concluding the discussion of the BOP's place in the governing documents of ACB, it is important also to consider where BOP is not mentioned. In particular, the BOP is not even referenced in Article V, "Powers and Duties of the Convention, the Officers, the Board of Directors and Committees." Given the extraordinary role and powers that are suggested to be held by the BOP, it seems hard to believe that some mention of such powers or duties is not contained in this article of the constitution. However, the constitution is silent on the matter.
Let us now consider the BOP in its institutional existence within ACB. While not as important as the governing documents discussed above, the history of BOP is unique and peculiar enough to warrant such a discussion. This discussion is specifically and intentionally limited to BOP scope and relationship to the board.
A treatment on censorship and the role of the BOP in its specific duties is excluded at this time. It is a fascinating topic of its own, but not deemed relevant here. First, it is clear that BOP has acted continuously in its oversight role to the editor of "The Braille Forum." In this matter, the BOP and the ACB Board exist on relatively parallel tracks and interaction is limited if it exists at all. Over time, the BOP has come to have a role in the contracts through which "The Braille Forum" is produced. This role came into existence only after the editor of the Forum was moved into the national office structure. This role was limited significantly in July 2002 when the board of directors mandated that contracts over $25,000 must be presented to the budget committee, an elected committee of the board of directors. This will undoubtedly include contracts for the print and braille editions of the Forum. Third, the BOP has routinely made recommendations about article length, page count, and possible topics of interest and of a timely nature that might be included in "The Braille Forum." For example, concerning activities in the past year of the BOP between 1963-1964, June Goldsmith writes: "The board recommended a budget to the board of directors of ACB for the maintenance and publication of the magazine. The board took part in the discussions which preceded the decision to make 'The Braille Forum' a bi-monthly publication. The board is also taking part in the consideration being presently given to putting the Forum on discs." (Braille Forum, September 1964.)
During her chairmanship of BOP, Harriet Fielding writes regarding recommendations by BOP to the ACB board on the scope of their duties: "The guidelines proposed by the Board of Publications and approved by the ACB Board of Directors are as follows. ..." (Braille Forum, March 1982). This provides clear documentation that the board of directors has the authority to approve BOP guidelines. Even more significant are the guidelines themselves. Consider the first two guidelines presented in her report: "1. The phrase, 'all official publications,' as used in By-Law 7 of the ACB Constitution and By-Laws, is defined so as to include any and all periodicals, pamphlets, brochures, leaflets, or other comparable materials produced for or by the American Council of the Blind and intended for general distribution. 2. Specifically excluded from the provisions of Section 1 are news releases, public service announcements, and materials designed for rapid distribution to state and special-interest affiliates."
The exclusions referenced above were made specifically by the board after discussion and debate. It is equally true that the national office and the board have taken a very lenient view in the application of the exclusions in item 2. However, the policy has not been revised inasmuch as this is about what the BOP can require regarding its involvement, not about what it may be requested to do. Clearly, the BOP has made recommendations to the executive director, the president and the board of directors with regard to "Braille Forum" length and the number of issues of the magazine. This shows that the board of directors holds complete budgetary control over "The Braille Forum" as well as other publications of the organization and the BOP itself.
In addition, we see from the Fielding article that the BOP has made recommendations about its own scope and brought those recommendations to the board of directors for approval. There could be no clearer demonstration of the hierarchical relationship at work here. I trust that this brief review of the history of the development of the board of publications as a corollary and assistive body to the board of directors will prove helpful to those who may have become confused during recent discussions over the roles and relationships of various committees and groups within our family of working groups.
Certainly, the work of the BOP is very significant to our ability to meet the needs of our members. But just like the budget committee, which is a committee elected by the board of directors, no one can presume that such entities take a standing or political status to alter the historic and constitutional order of authority within the American Council of the Blind. We all need to remember that the annual convention remains the supreme authority of the ACB even though it has delegated certain of its powers to the board of directors. And right behind the annual convention comes the board of directors, even though it may delegate certain of its powers and responsibilities to other groups. There is no doubt that the board of publications holds a unique place in the power structure of ACB. It is to be respected by the board of directors.
It may be that there might, under a certain set of circumstances, need to be an arms-length relationship between the two boards. However, it is equally clear that in a strictly hierarchical sense, the board of directors holds sway over BOP unless otherwise directed by the convention. While it may not be wise to end this discussion on a note of speculation, there is one area in which the board of directors would be wise to act with extreme caution with regard to the scope and power of the BOP. That is in the area of censorship of materials that appear in "The Braille Forum." While there is no documentary evidence whatsoever on this topic in the formal writings within ACB during or after July 1961, there is a history of writings by key ACB members before that time in the Braille Free Press. These writings contain some of the threads of ideas that provide BOP with the anecdotal powers many claim for it.
While it has been argued here that such anecdotal powers clearly do not exist with regard to the day-to-day budgetary and operational affairs of BOP, it is much more difficult to understand the role, scope, or power of the BOP within the specific area of censorship. The history of BOP further confounds this issue. However, let this specific consideration be the topic for another time.
CAPTION
The board of publications took a break after the banquet to pose for some pictures. Top row: Mike Duke, Ken Stewart, Charlie Hodge. Bottom row: Jonathan Mosen, Winifred Downing, Penny Reeder. Not shown: Adrian De Blaey, Earlene Hughes, Ralph Sanders.