[21183] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] What is our "Bread" abd "Butter"?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Stratton)
Thu Sep 14 23:12:20 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <000701c01ec3$1d269e20$d778b7d1@indy.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:14:49 -0500
Reply-To: Mark Stratton <stratton@INDY.NET>
From: Mark Stratton <stratton@INDY.NET>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Brother Francis,
While what you suggest is an alternative, please keep in mind two factors in
this discussion:
1) The 90 day submission requirement is *followed* by an 80 day
notification requirement. We must have submissions into the National Office
no later than 90 days prior; the office must then transmit those submissions
no later than 80 days. It's done under a concept called "Notice" and it's
to provide chapters (and members) enough time to review materials to decide
if the materials are important enough for them to attend.
2) Chapters have a little less than TWO YEARS to submit proposals; nothing
says you have to wait until right before convention. You could submit
something on January 1, 2001 for the 2002 convention. Of course, because
convention is so far away, most people don't think about this that far
ahead, but there is nothing that requires a chapter to wait until the
semester of the convention.
What will change the amount of legislation submitted by actives? Truth be
told, I'm not sure anything can. I'm certainly willing to listen to ideas,
though. Alumni do provide a very functional role in this exercise in that
they often times have a broader and more long-term view of the fraternity,
and so submit proposals accordingly. Many chapter members are concerned
with their day-to-day issues in their chapters and so don't usually think
beyond the chapter (there are notable exceptions, to be sure.)
The arrangement we have works well, I think - alumni propose a lot of
amendments (many technical or corrective in nature) and the actives decide
whether or not to implement them (and, I should point out that we get some
very good and necessary proposals from actives as well.) Is there too much
legislation? That's a different question, but I've heard it asked before
many times. If the legislation deals with important matters, then I don't
think there could be too much.
The problem that I have experienced with debates running too long is NOT the
amount of legislation but every would-be-parliamentarian (okay, so I can be
included in this at times) wants to make every little procedural motion
possible; it is THAT kind of stuff that takes forever. I've been a voting
delegate twice - once for my chapter (1996) and once as the Region VI alumni
voting delegate (1998). Alumni speak VERY infrequently, and then only on
matters that really pertain to them. Actives, though they submit the lesser
amount of legislative proposals, take the lion's share of the debate, and
perhaps that's even more important than them submitting proposals in the
first place.
Fraternally,
Mark Stratton
Region VI Alumni Coordinator
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Francis" <mfranci@MINDSPRING.COM>
To: <APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [APO-L] What is our "Bread" abd "Butter"?
> Sorry about jumping in a little late on this, but here's my take on a
little
> of this:
>
> Actives seem to submit a far less amount of legislation than alumni (maybe
> not a lot less, but less.) With the deadline for submitting legislation
> being 90 days prior to Convention, some chapters may not have enough time
to
> determine what they wish to submit for legislation, or at least the active
> members, since they have just returned to school.
>
> Would it be possible, perhaps, to shorten the deadline from 90 days to,
say,
> 70 or 75 days? And not just possible, but really feasible, with still
enough
> time to put together packets of legislation to send back to chapters?
Would
> a little more time be enough, and would it be feasible to shorten the time
> period without creating much of a mess in the Nationals flow of paper and
> traffic?
>
> I eagerly await a response. Do you think this would have the desired
effect
> of getting more actives to submit legislation?
>
>
> Michael Francis
> Section 72 Staff
> Delta Kappa #700, Emory University '99
>
