[20073] in APO-L
National Pledge Standards
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John &Barb Anderson)
Sun Jan 31 09:57:50 1999
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 07:19:00 -0500
Reply-To: John &Barb Anderson <jbanderson@GREENAPPLE.COM>
From: John &Barb Anderson <jbanderson@GREENAPPLE.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Brothers,
There was a recent post concerning the length of pledging that I felt
compelled to respond to. First, parts of the post I thought were
inappropriate and would have been better served off-line. Second, there
were some comments made about winning and losing.
Here are some facts as opposed to opinions....
Some of the pledge standards are written in a manner to permit
interpretation, such as the standard that addresses the length of the
pledge period referred to by Brother Strong in his recent post. The
standard specifically states "...should not be shorter than six weeks nor
more than ten weeks in duration." The operative word in this sentence is
"should". The standard does not say "shall". This standard was written to
allow latitude. (I remember some of the debate at Nashville and other
instances where the recommendations contained within the standard have been
modified) In specific instances, a shorter or longer pledge period may be
appropriate, but should involve careful thought by the chapter, the chapter
exec, advisors and sectional and regional staff. Where some interpretation
may be applied to pledge period length, other standards, e.g., those on
hazing and other points, are written in the definitive, either including or
excluding certain types of activities and therefore allow no latitude for
interpretation.
As far as winning or losing, the staff within a region are supposed to be a
team. However, the regional director is the chief executive officer of
their region. The region includes all the sections within it. As chief
executive officer the responsibility for making bottom line policy
decisions, (not always popular ones) such as in this case, rests with the
RD. In the specific instance referred to by Brother Strong, I know the
difficult decision was reached only after facts were gathered from the
regional and sectional staff, including Brother Strong; persons on the
campus; and another staff volunteer who was directly involved in
facilitating the pledging efforts on the campus. Once decisions such as
these are made, the RD should have every expectation that the policy will
be followed and supported by all of the affected staff. Publicly
attacking specific decisions (after they have been made) , in the manner
that this was done and after the fact, are simply not in the best interest
of APO.
I would have preferred a private post or an off line discussion but since
things were said publicly that needed addressed, I felt I had no other
recourse.
John R Anderson
