The idea on the outside looks good, but the more it is thought about, the
more it doesn't make sense. Basically it will tie up efforts with layers of
beauracracy, much like the Federal Government does. The more "layers" you
add the more money that must be spent on administration rather than the
individual state efforts.
In NJ, we already have a group working on legislative efforts. We have
attorneys (ferret owning), vets and lots of people who are working with us.
We have support by various politicians already. Adding another group into
the mix will only confuse things. By the way, our group is comprised of
members of AFA, LOS and former FURO members who are all working together for
the common good. HOWEVER- we leave our affiliations at the door- none of
those groups has anything to do with our completely separate organization.
We have attended both AFA and LOS shows as a group. We have no membership
dues, people can donate as they choose to or not at all. So far we have had
no problem getting funds when we really needed to. Becuase it is being done
in the state, in a grass roots manner, we have no need for fancy press
agents or lobbyists. Our press agents are the people who call their local
talk radio stations and talk about the issues, and our lobbyists are the
people who call their local congressmen and voice their message. Think
about it- who is the local assemblyman going to hear- his constituent who
vows to campaign actively and aggressivley against him if he votes the wrong
way, or the guy from Colorado who sends a fax.
Rather than one "National" group, why not do it this way...each state forms
their own group. One person from each state group is designated as the
"Liason" for contact with other groups. As each state has a vote geting
ready in the Lesgislature, or a Kodo type case, the liason for that state
will contact the liason for the other states who will then contact the
members of the other states. This way there is no "National" administration
which needs funding, it is all done grass roots style, state to state.
The members of each state group will know their states laws, so no one will
need to know all states laws. Also, in some states, the keyword is walk
softly but carry a mighty stick, while in others it is scream and shout.
Each state group will act independantly in the manner best for their
particular state, yet they will cooperate with each other when need be.
Also, when it comes to funding, here in NJ, where our group has no
membership fees, I know that many of us donated money for the Kodo cause.
However, if we had had membership fees, people probably wouldn't have
donated, thinking the group already had...but if the group had just spent a
ton o' cash on printing and mailing letters to politicians due to an
upcoming vote, perhaps they hadn't sent anything as there was nothing to
send. Also, the amount of money being suggested as membership dues on the
National level is just too high for some people. We have a lot of people in
the NJ group who can not afford to pay membership dues. They still want to
help, and will go out and get petitions signed, hang fliers, whatever. You
will be excluding the most important people if a National organiztion is
formed, that of those willing to really get their hands dirty in the
trenches. Lastly on the issue of money, one of the problems with any
organization is the issue of accountability. You are suggesting that a huge
amount of money will be taken in. Who will control the funds? Who will
issue checks to different sub-groups, and on what basis will they be issued?
What if funds are low, and three states are up for crucial votes and need
additional funding. Who will decide who gets the last dollars?
Please take a moment to think about my comments. The thought of a National
Organization is good, but simply too problematic. Let this be done state to
state, with cooperation between the different state groups. It will be a
much better means to an end.
-Anne
[Posted in FML issue 1976]
|
