[20082] in APO-L
RD's vs. Sec. Chairs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Stratton)
Mon Feb 1 08:33:53 1999
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:32:38 -0500
Reply-To: Mark Stratton <stratton@INDY.NET>
From: Mark Stratton <stratton@INDY.NET>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE4DBD.6CEA3A80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Brother Grossi wrote:
"Actually at the last convention legislation was submitted by John
Anderson, which removed a Section Chairs ability to disagree with a =
Regional
Director from the national bylaws. Up until that point it was assumed =
that an RD
and an SC would work in concert, and both be responsible to the students =
which
elected them. As of this past convention it's made very clear that an SC =
elected
by the students but works for the Regional Director. Very clearly the =
problem
here is that it puts the SC in the role of serving two possibly =
disagreeing
masters, of which one has a much stronger power to get their way.
I would like to think that an RD and an SC could be mature and =
open
minded enough to work together in their goals of implementing the =
conventions
directives and resolve their differences of opinion and style without =
resort of
one of them pulling rank... this though does not seem to be the case."
I agree with John here, that it's preferable to have the RD and SC be in =
agreement on matters of policy interpretation. However, being fallible =
as we humans tend to be, we know that won't always be the case. There =
*has* to be some final decision-maker, and I think, in this case, the RD =
is appropriate. However, it should be noted that, and I don't think =
John's comments refute this, the Section Chair should feel free to =
disagree with the Regional Director and express to that director his or =
her objections, concerns, etc. in regards to a specific policy =
interpretation. The RD, fulfilling a role of fraternal leadership, =
should CAREFULLY consider such opinions - I think that in mose casest he =
Section Chairs are a lot closer with the Chapters and as such have a =
better feel for the interests of the Chapters. But I must also agree =
with Brother Anderson's previous comments, which is this: once the =
decision is made by the RD, the Section Chair is bound to follow that. =
Now, and I speak from experience, the Chair may feel include to continue =
to discuss his or her objections to the RD, but should NOT publicly =
denounce the interpretation.
If the area continues to be disputed, perhaps some higher arbiter might =
be necessary - RD's do NOT exercise leadership in a vaccuum, devoid of =
the input of the Section Chairs (who, in turn, do not exercise =
leadership in the total absence of chapter interests or input.) An RD =
who practices THIS type of leadership, in fact, ANY leader who attempts =
to lead this way, faces a long, long struggle. =20
Win-win solution is that the RD and SC agree on policy interpretations, =
but if not, the RD wins. I think that was the point of the amendment we =
passed in Minneapolis.
Fraternally,
Mark Stratton
Section 52 Communications Chair
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE4DBD.6CEA3A80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>Brother Grossi =
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>"Actually at the =
last convention=20
legislation was submitted by John<BR>Anderson, which removed a Section =
Chairs=20
ability to disagree with a Regional<BR>Director from the national =
bylaws. Up=20
until that point it was assumed that an RD<BR>and an SC would work in =
concert,=20
and both be responsible to the students which<BR>elected them. As of =
this past=20
convention it's made very clear that an SC elected<BR>by the students =
but works=20
for the Regional Director. Very clearly the problem<BR>here is that it =
puts the=20
SC in the role of serving two possibly disagreeing<BR>masters, of which =
one has=20
a much stronger power to get their=20
way.<BR> I would like to think =
that an=20
RD and an SC could be mature and open<BR>minded enough to work together =
in their=20
goals of implementing the conventions<BR>directives and resolve their=20
differences of opinion and style without resort of<BR>one of them =
pulling=20
rank... this though does not seem to be the case."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I agree with John here, that it's =
preferable to=20
have the RD and SC be in agreement on matters of policy =
interpretation. =20
However, being fallible as we humans tend to be, we know that won't =
always be=20
the case. There *has* to be some final decision-maker, and I =
think, in=20
this case, the RD is appropriate. However, it should be noted =
that, and I=20
don't think John's comments refute this, the Section Chair should feel =
free to=20
disagree with the Regional Director and express to that director his or =
her=20
objections, concerns, etc. in regards to a specific policy =
interpretation. =20
The RD, fulfilling a role of fraternal leadership, should CAREFULLY =
consider=20
such opinions - I think that in mose casest he Section Chairs are a lot =
closer=20
with the Chapters and as such have a better feel for the interests of =
the=20
Chapters. But I must also agree with Brother Anderson's previous =
comments,=20
which is this: once the decision is made by the RD, the Section =
Chair is=20
bound to follow that. Now, and I speak from experience, the Chair =
may feel=20
include to continue to discuss his or her objections to the RD, but =
should NOT=20
publicly denounce the interpretation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If the area continues to be disputed, =
perhaps some=20
higher arbiter might be necessary - RD's do NOT exercise leadership in a =
vaccuum, devoid of the input of the Section Chairs (who, in turn, do not =
exercise leadership in the total absence of chapter interests or =
input.) =20
An RD who practices THIS type of leadership, in fact, ANY leader who =
attempts to=20
lead this way, faces a long, long struggle. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Win-win solution is that the RD and SC =
agree on=20
policy interpretations, but if not, the RD wins. I think that was =
the=20
point of the amendment we passed in Minneapolis.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Fraternally,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Mark Stratton</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Section 52 Communications =
Chair</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE4DBD.6CEA3A80--
