I have seen the number of posts for a national organization die out this
weekend - perhaps because everyone who wants to do it is taking the weekend
off :)  All the better time to be noticed.
 
I just read Jeanne Carley's post from the Ferret digest dated 20 Jun - 22
Jun.  I find that her initial reaction to the ACOs to be typical of ferret
organizations when dealing with various other government organizations.  In
fact, I've seen similar reactions when one ferret group meets up with
another.  Its a reaction that I've never quite understood.
 
In a simple model, there are really only two camps.  Those that want to keep
animals safe, and those who want to keep people safe.  The only time there
should ever be a conflict, is when those interests conflict.  And I think
that when you get someone who can actually think and negotiate on each side
of the issue, that many can be resolved without having to go at it.
 
In our model, there are dozens of "teams", each within their own shade of
grey on the issues.  Unfortunately (whether it be through ego, fear, or just
an unwillingness to work the issues), when they encounter another shade of
grey, they deem it enemy, rather than "nearly a friend".
 
Anyone with tactial experience will tell you that any battle fought with
almost equal forces will result in a stalemate.  A futher increase in the
number of participants will merely create a push-pull conflict, where each
member will gain in the areas where they are concentrating their forces, and
lose in areas that are weakened by the lesser resources.
 
The other two statements that readily apply (that I've heard several times
during various conflicts) are "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", and "The
enemy of my enemy will still probably be my enemy".  Chances are, neither
will be 100% correct.
 
Now, how does this apply to my subject line?  Funny you should ask... :) I
think that if any National Organization is to stand a chance in hell of
succeeding, its PRIMARY mission will have to be to build the bridges, first
between the various ferret organizations - both nationally and
internationally - so that they become one operational unit, and then second,
towards the other organizations with which we will have to work (HSUS, the
PCAs, the state governments, etc).
 
I think that the Kodo case has begun the first steps.  However, you won't
get to move very far forward unless formal standards for organizations are
drawn up and enforced.  Also, you will not get support from the individual
organizations unless they have considerable say in the direction of the
national organization.
 
Personally, having been a member of several of the large national
organizations (Boy Scouts of America, AOPA, etc), I think I've seen some
good working models to pull from.  Probably the best for our case is the
BSA, where, although they have a central, organized structure, the various
councils nation wide have considerable freedom to work their own local
issues, but under the guidence (though not control) of the bigger picture.
The real win here is that all resources (nationwide) are shareable, and the
cost to the local organization is ZIP above and beyond what they're gaining
out of it.
 
For instance, MaFF decided they wanted to join the Kodo fight, and they
dumped all their available resources in to the fight... and although we
didn't "win", per se, I think it achived two goals - one, to show that
organizations can work together, and two, it give Kodo a far better fighting
chance than if MI had gone it alone.  I also know (although I haven't been
following it all that closely), that a number of organizations contributed
equally (and possibly more).  I apologize for not having names on hand, but,
I've been following the case through MaFF, and therefore specifcally know
only about their involvement.
 
Under this national model, the resources required for the national
organization would be minimal, as most action would be taken locally, or by
groups of local organizations.  Realistically, a president, a VP, and a
council based on representatives of the local organizations, would form a
realistic working platform.  Then, issues could be discussed, voted on, and
accepted.  Voting could be biased based on membership in the organization
(say, one council vote for every 100 members, which can be rescaled based on
future sizes), which can then be handled as the member organization sees fit
(ie - use all its votes to go one way or the other, or break them up based
on popular vote at the membership level).  All of the BSA units I've been in
also favored the 2/3rds vote, rather than the majority vote, so that it
would be less likely that last minute persuasion would factor in (ie a 51/49
vote is inconclusive, but a 67/33 vote is).
 
Anyhow, these are my opinions.  I'll even take the burden of stating that
I'll be more than happy to draft some of the bylaws to implement my
suggestions.  Or do the whole thing if people like my model.
 
The bottom line is that I would like to see, if its possible, and inclusive
model for the national organization, not a restrive one that has killed so
many other organizations in the past.
 
I also apologize for the length, but, having read every single FML end to
end, and I haven't posted in a year or more, I think I deserve the space
[Right BIG?].  [You're under the limit anyhow :-) BIG]
 
Anyhow, I hope this can get pulled off. It would be a big win.
        -Brian
[Posted in FML issue 1981]