[19935] in APO-L
Re: Another idea on legislation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Stromberg)
Sat Jan 23 14:53:44 1999
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:43:32 -0800
Reply-To: Chris Stromberg <cstrombe@LELAND.STANFORD.EDU>
From: Chris Stromberg <cstrombe@LELAND.STANFORD.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Brothers,
I have another idea that has not been brought up, and then a few comments
on previous suggestions. My suggestions (not in the form of legislations,
yet, and would probably require a change to the by-laws, but I'm not sure
where) is that committee members be required to meet the same requirements
as voting delegates, but NOT be required to BE a voting delegate (they
still could be, if they are so inclined).
My rational for this is simple. I was on the Chapter Ops. II committee in
Minneapolis. Then I hit the floor running. My roommate (and other
delegate from Zeta) chaired the Time and Place committee. Let me tell you,
we both got less than about 2 hours of sleep each night. It was not pretty
by the end of the first night of legislation. The only reason I have heard
not to do this is that it might put smaller chapters at a disadvantage,
because they can't send 4 people. Personally, I think the obvious benefits
outweigh that (especially being from a chapter that could only send 2
people this time).
Much of the benefit of the National Convention comes from what goes on
OUTSIDE of the legislative floor (the workshops, leadership development,
and, yes, even socializing). This would give both committee members and
voting delegates a chance to participate in at least one day's worth of
these things.
As for the proposal to limit when a proposal can come back again, I have
two problems with this. First is a logistical problem. Sometimes,
legislation that deals with the same issue, but in different ways gets
presented. Sometimes, the legislation just looks different. I wouldn't
want to be the one to have to go through it all to make the call which ones
can and cannot be submitted.
The second problem is that I just don't like the idea. If a piece of
legislation is important enough to make it out of committee more than one
convention in a row, maybe it should be debated more than one convention in
a row. Sometimes, a change has to be introduced, and then people have to
have some time to get used to the idea (or, they need time to think about
the consequences, or whatever). I would hate to limit that process.
The other suggestion would be to limit what alumni can propose. I would
strongly oppose this one, as well. If a brother has a suggestion that he
or she believes would make this a better fraternity, let's hear it. I
don't want to make it any more difficult than it has to be. The
requirement that they get the approval of a brother or chapter is just
another hoop to jump through. If someone thinks that a proposal is good,
they will have checked it out in advance. Trust me, they could find
someone to support it. All this would do is unnecessarily differentiate
between brothers in this fraternity.
I hope I have been relatively coherent on this one. Please forgive the
length of this.
Chris Stromberg
Zeta
(Also a grad student, so please, it is NOT an undergraduate fraternity!)
