Verhovayak Lapja, 1951 (34. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1951 / Verhovay Journal

LET’S NOT PLAY POLITICS,

LET’S TRY FAIR PLAY

_Fairness, Truth, Free Speech And The Interest Of The General Membership

Demand Some Comments On Actions Of Some Districts. —

August is, .1951 ___________Verhovay

All of the minutes of the district sessions received to date have been published uncut and uncensored, regardless of the fact that the By-Laws as amended by the 1947 National Convention clearly limit the purpose of the district meeting to the election of delegates and alternate delegates to the National Convention. In addition to that the district meetings were called upon to take action on the supplementary amendments to the By-Laws proposed by the April, 1951, meeting- of the Board of Directors. These supplementary proposals, however, if adopted by the National Convention, still will have to be submitted to the branches for final action. Finally, the district meetings have the right to present new recommendations) as to proposed amendments on matters not previously dealt with by the branches, nor included in the proposals made by the Board of Directors. The attention of all district officers was called to these facts by a letter from the Home Office as well as in the Official Comment in a previous issue of the Journal.

BY-LAWS DISREGARDED

What actually happened, is this. The majority of district delegates, maybe out of habit, stayed true to the old custom — which, however, has been discontinued b* the last Convention — and in the majority of instances they simply proceeded to discuss and take action on matters already settled by the branch meetings last December.

The Board of Directors and the National Officers have been subjected to a great deal of criticism on the ground that they have allegedly overstepped in some of their actions, their jurisdiction as outlined in the By- Laws as well as by the actions of past conventions. As the delegates to the coming National Convention will have ample opportunity to find out, these) allegations have no basis in fact, legally or otherwise. But the curious thing is that those who are traditionally considered the upholders of the By-Laws, have simply disregarded the clear provisions of the By-Laws, enacted by their own representatives, by arbitrarily making the business of the branches their own business. In view of this fact, your editors would have been perfectly justified in omitting the parts of the minutes dealing with matters not belonging to the jurisdiction of the district meetings. That we did not do so, was due solely to our respect for the freedom of the press and the rights of the membership.

BRANCH ACTIONS DISREGARDED

But that isn’t all. In some districts an even more curious situation developed. The branches assigned to these districts have accepted by majority vote, if not unanimously, at the meetings held last December, the proposed amendments submitted by the Board of Directors, fully approving them. Yet the delegates of these same branches, assembled in the district meetings, simply disregarded the actions of their own branches, passing actions contrary to the actions adopted previously by the branches and submitted in writing to the Home Office.

Strictly speaking, this cannot be interpreted otherwise as a violation of the mandate some of these fellowmembers and district delegates have received from the members of their home branches and the question arises by what right a representative of the

membership would overrule the action of the members electing him? But

we’ll let that pass, too, for the sake of the freedom of the press and the rights of the members. But in view of these obvious contradictions it becomes not only our right, but even more so our duty to comment on some of the actions of certain districts, especially in cases where it would be harmful to the interests of the Association if we were to publish these actions without appropriate) comment.

ACTION INVOKES BOGEYMAN

One of the districts proposes an amendment by which a referendum vote would be required if the assets of the Association should decrease to the extent of no longer meeting the * requirements of the insurance statutes of the states as a result of which either an increase in the dues or reinsurance would become necessary.

Every field worker knows how often the question “Is it true that fraternals can increase their rates?” is met in the course of securing new members. And not only field workers, but branch officers and members alike can easily see what is behind such an inquiry and what its results may be.

EVERY WELL INFORMED PERSON KNOWS THAT SUCH A SITUATION HAS NEVER YET OCCURRED DURING THE NINE DECADES OF FRATERNAL HISTORY. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WAS WHEN FRATERNAL BURIAL AND SICK BENEFIT SOCIETIES CHANGED OVER TO THE LEGAL RESERVE SYSTEM, BUT THAT WASN’T THE SAME THING, AND EVERY WELL INFORMED MEMBER KNOWS THAT THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE VERHOVAY FRATERNAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION WAS NEVER AS SOUND AND STRONG AS IT IS TODAY AND THAT THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENTS IN ALL OF THE STATES WE ARE LICENSED TO OPERATE IN, ARE FULLY SATISFIED THAT THIS IS SO.

Then why invoke the bogeyman? Why discuss at this of all times a non-existent problem that has not a chance to arise today, tomorrow, or next year or ten years from now? Why give food to the doubts of people whose doubts have been instilled by unscrupulous agents who try to alienate our own members by mentioning dangers that have not a chance to materialize ? Why bury the Association when it is healthier than it ever was ? Why engage in preparations that may give the uninitiated the idea that a funeral is imminent? And why have such an action published in the Journal, broadcasting to the world that some of our own members don’t believe in the future of our Association? We don’t object to the discussion of even such remotq iand unlikely possibilities at branch meetings, district sessions and National Conventions. This is a country of free speech, thank God! But on the same token we have the light and the duty to reject the bogeyman and to protest the publication of such action in our official Journal as a, sericus attack against our earnest efforts in securing new members and thereby assuring the progress of our Association which not only has a great past but also a glorious future.

YOUNG MEN WANTED

Another district seems to object to our advertisement according to which

Journal

men, married, age 28-40 are wanted for district managers’ position and they retaliate by proposing that the same rule should prevail in regards to National Officers, Directors and Auditors.

We respectfully state that the wording of such an ad does not reflect a trend to reject older men for employment in the Association. It is simply common practice in the entire field of insurance, — commercial as well fraternal, — to prefer :nen younger than 40 when it comes to train and start out candidates in a profession new to them. We do employ older men. But as a general principle it is more sound to investi the time and money needed for training in a younger individual whose usefulness to the Association may not be terminated due to old age or disability, at a too early date after assuming his position.

This principle is being followed by! almost all insurance organizations, commercial and fraternal alike, but these same organizations do not propose to unseat their aged officers or to remove meii who have spent their best years in the service of the organization. It takes a younger man to start on a promising and successful career but it takes older men of experience to guide their operations. So why make mountains out of molehills ?

EXPERIENCE PROHIBITED

Several district meetings propose the novel idea that no member of thei Board of Directors or the Auditing Committee should be eligible for more than two terms, that is 8 years. That’s taking a leaf from the formidable book of political experience, but only in regards to exceptional positions, like the Mayors of certain cities, the Governors of some states and hereafter the President of the United States. Obviously, the intent in these instances is to prevent one man from acquiring too much power. But even in political life this principle does not apply to congressmen, senators, nor to judges of the Supreme Courts, etc.

However, the Verhovay is not a political organization. It is a life insurance organization of the fraternal type and, therefore, as far as its administration is concerned, it should be governed by sound business principles. Contrary to widespread misconceptions, the directors and national officers of the Association are in charge of the business operations of the Association while the fraternal activities are mostly assigned to the jurisdiction of the branches.

Thus, the Verhovay as an insurance! organization is primarily a business enterprise. And business enterprises all over the world prefer to be administered by men of experience. Except perhaps in certain parts of the Verhovay where some would like to prohibit men of experience to serve in the administration.

Obviously, the intent is to let inexperienced men, too, have a chance to serve the Association in higher capacity. As such, the intent is laudable but the question is: should such a chance be given at the expense of the Association’s best interests? The delegates have every right to elect new directors if they feel that such an action would be to the advantage of the membership. But to prohibit experience to take part in the administration of the business of the Association just for the sake of exercising electoral rights, is certainly a poor way to insure progress.

Let’s give just one example. The late and generally beloved Vice-President of the Association, Albert B. Ari, was elected three times in succession. Do the protagonists of the novel proposal really believe it would

PAGE 15

j have been better for the Association if it would have been prevented from availing itself of the benefit of Ali Ari’s experience after the expiration of his second term?

THE EQUALITY OF UNEQUALS

A number of district meetings demand that dividends be paid each year either to all of the members, both old and young, or to none of them. Here again we are confronted by the misapplication of democratic principles.

We are unequivocally committed to the doctrine of the equality of man. We solemnly declare that we are opposed to all discrimination, (including the discrimination now practiced among some Verhovayans who feel that a member because of his education or profession is not just as good a member as the rest of them and is denied the right to fill any official, position on prejudicial grounds.)

In this particular instance, however, discrimination would be practiced if we were to adopt the principle proposed by some districts. One example will be enough to show our point.

A member who joined the Association in 1934 at the age o! 20 applying for a $1,000 Twenty Pay Life Certificate, has paid and still pays $1.94 dues per month. Another member who joined the Association in 1949 at the same age, has paid and will continue paying $2.63 for the same class and amount of insurance protection. The one who joined in 1934, pays 69 cents less a month than the one who joined in 1949. The older member SAVES $8.28 each year due merely to the fact that he attained the age of 20 fifteen years earlier than his younger brother. Is there anyone to contend that the saving the older member realizes is of less value than the dividend paid to his younger brother? How then can anyone propose that the principle of equality would be served if the one paying so much less for his insurance protection would receive dividends equal to those paid to the one who pays so much more?

Some maintain that the inequality in dividend payments creates much disturbance among the older members. Frankly, we never have failed yet tc convince anyone of the irrefutable truth of our position. All it takes is a little time and trouble of properly explaining the truth.

Then, too, let us not forget that the older members who took out their Verhovay insurance in 1934 and even earlier years have been paying and are paying much lower dues than any insurance organization would have charged at that time. The saving they realized is far more than any legitimate dividend ever could have been. But those who have joined the Verhovay since January 1st, 1949, are paying rates far more approximating, though in most instances still lower, than the rates of the most popular insurance companies. How can you equalize the privileges of members if their obligations are unequal?

These are just a few elements entering into the matter, but let this be sufficient to illustrate the injustices a misapplication of the principle of democratic equality could produce. The trouble is that some of our militant members don’t realize that the principles that should prevail in law, government and politics, are different from those applying to business contracts. Let’s not play politics in the Verhovay, but let’s! try fair play. (H.R )

A bachelor is a man who can put on his socks from either end.

Adolescence is the age at which children stop asking questions because they know all the answers.