[19927] in APO-L
Re: Another idea on legislation (sorry, got chopped)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (N-space)
Sat Jan 23 06:41:34 1999
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:41:10 -0500
Reply-To: N-space <nasadk@RPI.EDU>
From: N-space <nasadk@RPI.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
I meant to send this to the original recipient *and* the list, but I think it
got muxed.
Oscar writes (again):
"
Here is an idea to give a slight restriction on alumni proposal of
legislation:
All legislation presented to the National Convention for
consideration shall be sponsored or co-sponsored by an Active member,
Chapter, Section, Region, or the National Board.
As an alumnus (and even as an Active brother), I did not think it
was right to propose legislation to the National Convention that I could
not even convince my chapter to approve. You will not find any legislation
from me, even though I have proposed legislation. Instead, the would say
Zeta Theta on it.
"
For It :
Why should alums be proposing legislation? Ultimately, the active membership
of this fraternity consists overwhelmingly of undergraduate brothers at the
chapters -- legislation affects them in the fraternity, and only affects alums
in few cases. The legislative body should swing to their wishes and desires
and needs. If an alum is proposing legisation that affects the fraternity
as a whole, there should be *some* demonstration that a part of the active
membership is in support of it.
Against It :
Legislation proposals should be allowed by any brother of the fraternity. To
restrict proposals based on fraternity status further works to drive a devide
between the membership. IMHO, is a proposal is relevant to the fraternity, then
it should not matter where it comes from.
Side notes :
I recently had a talk with an active brother at my chapter who suggested that
all legislation should *NOT* contain any mention of who proposed it. His
rationale was that brothers will assume that a legislative proposal from an
individual is also supported by the individual's chapter. I suggested that
this was not the case, that most brothers read the proposal line for what
it says -- proposed by <brother> of <chapter> and that if the chapter
supported it it would say proposed by <brother> _and_ <chapter>. Yeah, it's
a semantics issue, but an important one, we thought. I always assumed the
legislation was from an individual of a chapter. He assumed that it was from
an individual with a chapter's support. I'd like to see more clarity, to the
extent of a disclaimer saying that "All legislation is proposed by individual
brothers unless otherwise noted and does not construe an endorsement by the
proposer(s) chapter." or somesuch/
On a side note, I understand the reluctance to propose something that your
own chapter does not support. It's a kind of death knell when someone looks
at it and says "gee. their own chapter didn't believe in it." To me, I think
you should propose the legislation if you feel that it is relevant to the
fraternity, regardless of the support you get.
N-space
<nasadk@rpi.edu>
Alum, EZ, RPI, NY
