[19799] in APO-L
Bylaw discussion: The "House" Issue.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Harris)
Wed Dec 16 20:45:57 1998
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:44:12 -0600
Reply-To: Kevin Harris <kharris@IASTATE.EDU>
From: Kevin Harris <kharris@IASTATE.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Here's my take on the APO house issue:
I did not join APO to do service projects, I joined because I am allready
partaking in service projects, etc. I joined because I want the fellowship
with fellow brothers that may have the same take on life, and to take my
service activities to a new level.
I think it would be great if APO chapters could own and operate a house.
Of course further investigation on financing, etc. would first have to take
place. Along with that, a chapter that would want to go about the task of
building a house, a strong mambership would be required in order to finace
such an operation.
Kevin Harris
Xi Chapter
Iowa State University
>Regarding the discussion on why APO can/can't have a house, here's my take:
>
>I personally have grown in the fraternity with the understanding that we're
>not an official residential fraternity because we are a service, not a
>strictly social fraternity, and not in the Greek system at schools whenever
>possible.
>
>However, the argument that we would be better off doing service for others
>rather than devoting strength to upkeep of a house is a rather weak point to
>argue on. The reason is, everyone has to take time out to clean and upkeep
>the place they live, right, regardless of what type of housing arrangement
>exists. Even for me, not known for tidiness, I must take time to put whatever
>order I can in my apartment.
>
>Therefore, I feel that any time to upkeep a house is not any extra time away
>from community service,as residence maintenance will have to happen anywhere
>you live anyway.
>
>
>Furthermore, the use of the term "house" is legally ambiguous. Although in
>the Bylaws, and in this amendment, it does specify a house used as a
>residence, there is nothing to say that a fraternity cannot own any real
>estate. "Houses" can be offices, storage, meeting places, etc. and so long as
>no one resides there, it is in perfect conformance with bylaws and our
>nonresidential status.
>So when people ask simply "Why can't we have a house?" the actual correct
>answer is "We can." To be more legally correct, the question should read,
>"Why can't the fraternity own and/or operate a residence for its members"?
>
>Lastly, the Alumni Associations are autonomous from the fraternity, right?
>Can they own and or operate residences for alumni brothers? Like if a bunch
>of rich alumni real estate developers were to make a retirement or other
>residential community in Florida for brother-alumni and their families? Where
>community service projects are run out of the town, and where multiple houses
>and apartment buildings can be erected for borthers and their families? An
>APO community not run by the National Fraternity itself. Actually, this I'd
>be in favor of, and as you can see, I've given it some thought. (I've even
>sketched up a crude site plan of this that I plan to upload to the web in the
>next couple of months.) :)
>
>Your views?
>
>-Rich Vehlow "REV"
>vehlor@rpi.edu
>
