[19796] in APO-L
Bylaw discussion: Regional Conference Voting Power.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Edward Vehlow)
Wed Dec 16 18:39:05 1998
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 18:38:59 -0500
Reply-To: Richard Edward Vehlow <vehlor@RPI.EDU>
From: Richard Edward Vehlow <vehlor@RPI.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
At least 2 of my bylaws amendments address voting power of a Regional
Convention. I am a STRONG proponent of those proosed changes for the
following reasons:
1. Every region holds at least 1 biennial convention nowadays.
2. Region participation (by # of chapters) in a distant National convention
can easily dip below 50%, whereas most Regional conventionsthat I know of
regularly involve 2/3 or more of constituent chapters, and more members of
those chapters.
3. The case has been made against holding a region vote for regionals
time-place 2 years ahead of time for reasons of member turnover. I disagree.
National bids from conception to conference take well over 3 years with
expected turnover in undergrad members of bid and conference committees. The
same holds true for Region bids- most bids I've seen involve highly motivated
and experienced staff and long-term brothers who can help guide the bid
through turnovers. Although bids I've seen then and now have had little
problem securing the facilities in 1-1.5 years advance time. the 2-2.5 year
advance time can open up lead against any other organization vying for a
certain facility, plus it allows more opportunity for a backup hotel to be
selected. In the Nationals example- think Dallas 1994- formerly San Antonio
1994. Imagine if the lead time was only 1 year for that?
4. A case has been made that Region director wannabes should get to know the
pther RDs they serve with. Not necessary at election. By the time of
election, they want to run. The status of other regions and their staff have
little or no impact on a Region election. The RDs and other members of the
National Board meet 2x a year anyway, outside of Convention.
5. The RD election and Regional time-place voting takes up several hours on
the evening of Day 3 and afternoon of Day 4, during time better spent
discussing important nationals bylaws and elections. Legislation is long
enough with the national-level stuff. In contrast, a Regional Convention has
almost no business going on, with plenty of time to work in a session in the
schedule if the voting is to go to a Regional convention.
6. Getting the RD in a region business setting with constituent chapters
close to home may help stimulate greater interest in serving on Regional
staff and help bolster region-wide leadership.
7. COMMON SENSE. When I vote for my U.S. Senator, I don't have to leave my
state boundaries and do so in D.C. Likewise, the regional business should be
conducted within Regional boundaries (or in the host region's boundaries in
the event of a combined region conference). In line with point 1., it brings
this important voting process closer to the people to whom it will affect and
to a place where more of these people and chapters can participate.
8. In the event of a vacancy in the RD chair opening up outside of a regional
conference, there is still the possibility of conducting emergency voting at
a national convention. However, I do not believe the reverse is currently
true under present bylaws. I am unsure how a region can select a new RD
outside of the convention, should such an emergency election be necessary.
To sum up, I believe that Region level business and voting, especially
regarding region elections and conference selection, is a sensible, workable,
logical policy which should be implemented with passage of the appropriate
bylaws amendments cureently on the table. Thank you.
-Richard E Vehlow
Epsilon Zeta chapter
vehlor@rpi.edu
