[19961] in APO-L
Suggestion after a little more time
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL)
Mon Jan 25 11:00:46 1999
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:53:15 -0500
Reply-To: jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL
From: jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
I made a proposal over the weekend without giving it a rationale or much
thought. Since then I have had to opportunity to read through some very
interesting and helpful comments, consult the National Bylaws, and just
plain think about it.
Here is the proposal with corrections: Any amendment of the Articles of
Incorporation, National Bylaws, Standard Chapter Articles of Association,
rituals, ceremonies and Toast Song not receiving the required three-fourths
vote at a give National Convention shall be ineligible for consideration at
the following National Convention, unless proposed by the National Board of
Directors.
Rationale: The idea for the above legislation has come out of observations
made at several recent National Conventions and knowledge of local politics
in the City of Philadelphia. It is written into Philadelphia's charter
that if an attempt to amend the charter fails, that amendment may not be
reconsidered by the citizens of the city for (around 10 years I believe,
further research would be required for the exact time). This has had the
effect that attempts to amend the charter are handled very carefully and
proposed when its supports are fairly certain they have a chance to succeed
and in cases of where the measure is caught in a heated debate it gives
time to heal and cool off before the debate can be taken up again.
The above proposal would do much the same thing. There are several
heated topics that have been argued out at numerous National Conventions.
These issues are serious and both sides feel very strongly about their
beliefs and act accordingly. If one side is unable to garner the required
votes at a National Convention to pass their measure(s), then there will be
a period of 4 years for wounds to heal and to reshape arguments before the
issue is reconsidered. It may also mean that a certain group may choose
not to propose legislation if they feel that it will not pass, but rather
that support is growing and by the next convention it will succeed. It may
also prevent delegates choosing to vote in favor of the proposal more on
grounds that they do not want the fraternity to have to deal with this
debate at the next convention and less on its merits.
Another argument is that by increasing the cyclical nature of the
occurrences of often very heated issues before the Convention, it will
allow other and sometimes just as important proposals to received increased
attention by the delegates and decrease in the potentially combative
atmosphere. Both of which would do our fraternity a great service.
Two of the major arguments leveled against proposals such as this
are irrelevant. The first is that one could just slightly change the
wording of a proposal that has been defeated and then just resubmit it.
The Credentials & Rules committee is in place to handle such events. They
would be in a position to determine whether a given proposal was in fact,
by its nature, the same legislation that failed during the last convention
and thus eliminate it from consideration.
The second argument is that what if there is some need for a given
piece of legislation to be considered. Suppose an amendment is proposed
and voted down. Then during the next two years a federal law, or even
major shift in operating procedures of many universities is enacted that
requires that that same legislation to be passed at the next National
Convention in order for the fraternity to remain functioning. It is for
this reason that I have included the clause that allows for previous voted
down legislation to be reconsidered if the National Board so determines its
necessity by the National Board proposing the legislation to the
Convention.
This proposal will add new restrictions on what the National
Convention may consider, but it has positive aspects to such a degree as to
negate this possible negative. {end of rationale}
I look forward for many comments and suggestions on this proposal. One
thing that I have considered is change the three-fourths requirement to
simple majority or two-thirds. I decided against this, because I thought
that that would provide unwanted additional burden on the chair as he/she
would then have to not only determine whether the measure failed or
succeeded, but also whether or not the minimum required for its
reconsideration at the next Convention was achieved. Maybe someone with
experience as chair could comment upon this.
In LFBB,
Oscar
