[19283] in APO-L
How Affect Change in a National Organization
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Riz Shavelle)
Tue Oct 6 16:48:41 1998
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 16:47:52 -0400
Reply-To: Riz Shavelle <Shavelle@MISTY.COM>
From: Riz Shavelle <Shavelle@MISTY.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199810061626.JAA02104@nowhere.esd.sgi.com> from "Ping Huang" at
Oct 6, 98 09:26:20 am
Ping said:
> If you believe that the desire to preserve our honor and integrity
> fail to be a rational, logical argument, but rather is "merely" based
> on emotion and tradition, then so be it --- we will have to agree to
> strongly disagree. Whether it be by resolution or by bylaws
> amendment, if we gave our word to the all-male chapter at the national
> convention in 1976 that they may remain all-male until they choose to
> change, then our word is still given. The pending lawsuit from Zeta
> and Stanford law professors may have been a sword hanging over the
> fraternity's head that forced the decision to be made ASAP, but at the
> time, the fraternity had a choice, was presumably reasonably well
> informed about the two alternatives, and made its decision.
> Hopefully, unlike in the realm of politics, a promise made by Alpha
> Phi Omega, as represented by the voting delegates at a national
> convention, should mean something. Many politicians are not
> trustworthy, sadly, but I expect APO brothers to be in congruence with
> the first point of the scout law.
I would like everyone to consider a different view of our fraternity...one
that doesn't talk about the male/female/co-ed issue. Our fraternity was
set up and runs on the basis of membership. And, in our fraternity,
bylaws or governing rules are set by the National Convention that meets
every two years and is comprised of voting delegates from each chapter
and a very small number of delegates at large who are alumni.
To be honest, I don't see how a convention in 1976 could make such a
promise VALID and BINDING without also making radical changes to our
organizational and constitutional structure at the same time. I have seen
organizations that do this.
For example, I was a voting delegate to the Golden Key National convention
this summer. In their bylaws, any amendment or bylaws change passed by the
delegates must also be approved by the Board of Directors. Guess who
comprises the Board of Director? That's right, the charter members of the
organization.....so change only happens when a small group of 20 agree to
it even if a majority of the 340+ delegates want something changed.
If the fraternity meant to make such a promise binding, they needed to put
it into our operating structure. Otherwise, the "promise" was only valid
for 2 years until the next convention. Even last time that this was
brought to the floor as a resolution, well....a resolution does not do the
job when the bylaws state "each chapter will determine its own
membership". Any new resolution, bylaws etc...needs to change all
applicable sections in order to be binding...at least, that is what my
parliamentary training and Robvert's Rules tell me. You can not have a
bylaw saying "all chapters are co-ed" unless you also edit or change the
bylaw "chapters have the right to determine their own membership".
In order to make such a change binding, in whichever way, it needs to be
put into the National Constitution and Bylaws.
Anyways, that is just my 50 cents on the issue. I believe that my argument
is logic and rational. If anyone has a different interpretation on the
above argument as per our bylaws, I'd be interested to hear it.
- Riz
shavelle@misty.com
