[19970] in APO-L
Re: Countercounter arguments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William J. Turner)
Mon Jan 25 12:36:36 1999
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:35:53 -0500
Reply-To: "William J. Turner" <wjturner@EOS.NCSU.EDU>
From: "William J. Turner" <wjturner@EOS.NCSU.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: jmarmon@TEC1.APG.ARMY.MIL "Countercounter arguments" (Jan 25,
12:21)
> My response: I am not sure on the parliamentary procedure on this. I
> would really be interested in someone that does know chiming in (Brother
> Morrone if you are listening in on all this perhaps). It may be a question
> that the Credentials & Rules Committee would need to answer. Regardless,
> it is my understanding that most monetary proposals come out of the
> National Board as recommendations by the Treasurer after he/ she has
> reviewed the financial needs of the fraternity and thus would be exempt
> >from my proposal. Also, if it was determine, by more knowledgeable people
> than myself, that indeed this could pose a problem, this could be solved by
> merely amending my proposal by stating "except in matters dealing with
> money" or "finances of the fraternity."
Tom's comment was not only about money. It was about scope in general, and
dues is one of the easiest examples of how scope comes into effect. As Tom
said, there are certainly more complicated areas in which scope would make a
difference. So, I still think scope should be taken seriously.
> I also feel that there is an effective counter argument to the charges made
> that there is nearly a 100% turn-over in delegates from convention to
> convention.
As the person who stated this originally, I want to clarify something. I never
said it was a turnover in delegates. It's probably closer to 60% or 70% as
many delegates tend to be the brothers that are more active and thus are around
longer. But, there is a large turnover in actives between conventions. The
opinions of the chapters can easily change.
However, as brother Hahn has said, if it's a good idea for a proposal, it can
wait another two years for the next convention. The only exceptions for this I
see grow out of Brother Strongs arguements. If something fails, maybe a
reduced version is really what is needed, but if we take scope into account we
may be keeping this better proposals out of discussion for longer than they
need, or should, be.
Of course, these are all just thoughts off the top of my head, as I avoid doing
my work...
Will Turner
Section 80 Chair
