[19447] in APO-L
Re: Automatic revocation proceedings for felony
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen D. Gravrock)
Thu Oct 22 18:46:03 1998
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:35:37 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen D. Gravrock" <gravrock@WSUNIX.WSU.EDU>
From: "Stephen D. Gravrock" <gravrock@WSUNIX.WSU.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.981022132716.16153A-100000@access5.digex.net>
Now I don't know my way around the national bylaws all that well, but my
understanding is that a conviction of any kind, much less a felony
conviction, is not necessary under these circumstances.
The current situation, as I understand it, explicity allows that the
convention may revoke membership for hazing. I don't recall any mention of
conviction in a court of law being a prerequisite. I don't see
anything in the proposed amendment that would change that. Concerns of due
process aside (i.e. I'm not even looking at whether or not we should wait
for a conviction, just at the mechanics of it) I don't see how this
scenario would present a problem.
I could be wrong on this. If that's the case, let me know. (Note that I
have not stated an opinion on the issue itself, so no flames on that.)
> I also feel the need to point something out. In some states (such as
> Maryland), hazing is only a misdemeanor. So, under your proposal(s),
> someone could be tried and convicted of hazing in a court of law and we
> still could not throw them out of APO.
