[22583] in APO-L
[APO-L] 1996 Convention assessment of the Single-Gender issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Irwin Chui)
Sat Apr 27 07:42:15 2002
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_a2.24b7aa05.29fbe866_boundary"
Message-ID: <a2.24b7aa05.29fbe866@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 07:41:26 EDT
Reply-To: Chewster97@AOL.COM
From: Irwin Chui <Chewster97@AOL.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
--part1_a2.24b7aa05.29fbe866_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My APO Brothers:
I agree with Brother Heather Lyons' assessment on this issue. Actually, I was
a member of the Chapter Operations reference committee at the 1996 Convention
that analyzed and evaluated the single-gender issue in enormous great detail
and effort.
During those two (2) days of lengthy and intense committee hearings and
discussions, we painstakingly struggled with "what to do" with this enduring
and historical matter. We interviewed a diverse number of witnesses [nearly
twelve (12)], if my memory? still serves me correctly), including four (4)
past national presidents whom presided over APO during the 1970s and 1980s.
Our disussions led to a preliminary decision of allowing single-gender
chapters chartered prior to 1976 to remain single-gender (whether male or
female). However, our committee felt that further extensive research was
necessary to complete this highly intense issue.
Since time was our opponent, and we evaluated approx. thirty-four (34)
legislative proposals in 1 1/2 days, we decided by 10:30 pm on the second
evening of the convention to develop a resolution to form a presidential task
force committee (which included the National Membership/Extension Chair and
National Legal Counsel) to conduct research and further investigate the
entire formality of the single-gender issue and so-called Gentlemen's
Agreement.
By 4:10 am, we completed our resolution which included our committee
discussions and findings. In addition, we developed a eleven (11) poiint
recommendation list of what specific topics and areas for research and
investigation, including representation within the task force from regions II
(2), IV (4), and IX (9), a member each from an all-male, co-ed, and
all-female chapter to evaluate the costs and benefits of allowing
single-gender chapters prior to charter in 1976 (particularly all-male) to
remain single-gender. Furthermore, was the inclusion of Gamma Sigma Sigma
national sorority, and what impact that organization would have upon APO
chapters chartered within particular universities and colleges. Therefore,
based on their findings, the task force would submit relevant recommended
legislation to the 1998 convention for evaluation and decision.
The voting assembly voted in great majority (over 93%) to approve the
resolution our committee established. Basically, this resolution provided a
voice for single-gender chapters and a means for their survival.
Durng the next two (2) years, the task force performed their work with great
effort and intent, and presented an outstanding report of their research
findings to the 1998 convention. Thereafter, Brother Heather Lyons'
Membership/Extension reference committee took over the responsibility. Their
committee basically approved the task force's recommendations on this
single-gender matter, which meant to "Allow single-gender chapters chartered
prior to 1976 to remain single-gender, and any other chapters wishing to
charter or recharter shall be co-ed."
At the 1998 Convention, I recall observing from the non-voting delegate area
(peanut gallery) approx. twelve (12) midnight by a ballot vote, the
commitee's recommendation was approved by the voting delegate assembly with
over a ninety percent (90%) majority vote. Thus, single-gender chapters
chartered prior to 1976 are allowed to remain single-gender.
I believe the single-gender case is now "Closed." So why? are we re-living
this "Closed" issue again? Can't we just all get along? and advance forward
to greater and more important matters involving our beloved fraternity for
upcoming New Orleans 2002? Perhaps, we all could enjoy and relax more
leisurely at this convention and others forthcoming for a change, right?
P.S.: If any of my comrades in the 1996 Chapter Operations reference
committee wish to further comment, remark, or correct me regarding this
matter, please do so.
Also, I would like to hear from any of you. Its been a long time.....since
our collaboration and team-oriented effort those four (4) days in 1996.
In LFS,
Irwin Chui
Section 4
Region X
--part1_a2.24b7aa05.29fbe866_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>My APO Brothers:
<BR>
<BR>I agree with Brother Heather Lyons' assessment on this issue. Actually, I was a member of the Chapter Operations reference committee at the 1996 Convention that analyzed and evaluated the single-gender issue in enormous great detail and effort.
<BR>
<BR>During those two (2) days of lengthy and intense committee hearings and discussions, we painstakingly struggled with "what to do" with this enduring and historical matter. We interviewed a diverse number of witnesses [nearly twelve (12)], if my memory? still serves me correctly), including four (4) past national presidents whom presided over APO during the 1970s and 1980s.
<BR>
<BR>Our disussions led to a preliminary decision of allowing single-gender chapters chartered prior to 1976 to remain single-gender (whether male or female). However, our committee felt that further extensive research was necessary to complete this highly intense issue.
<BR>
<BR>Since time was our opponent, and we evaluated approx. thirty-four (34) legislative proposals in 1 1/2 days, we decided by 10:30 pm on the second evening of the convention to develop a resolution to form a presidential task force committee (which included the National Membership/Extension Chair and National Legal Counsel) to conduct research and further investigate the entire formality of the single-gender issue and so-called Gentlemen's Agreement.
<BR>
<BR>By 4:10 am, we completed our resolution which included our committee discussions and findings. In addition, we developed a eleven (11) poiint recommendation list of what specific topics and areas for research and investigation, including representation within the task force from regions II (2), IV (4), and IX (9), a member each from an all-male, co-ed, and all-female chapter to evaluate the costs and benefits of allowing single-gender chapters prior to charter in 1976 (particularly all-male) to remain single-gender. Furthermore, was the inclusion of Gamma Sigma Sigma national sorority, and what impact that organization would have upon APO chapters chartered within particular universities and colleges. Therefore, based on their findings, the task force would submit relevant recommended legislation to the 1998 convention for evaluation and decision.
<BR>
<BR>The voting assembly voted in great majority (over 93%) to approve the resolution our committee established. Basically, this resolution provided a voice for single-gender chapters and a means for their survival.
<BR>
<BR>Durng the next two (2) years, the task force performed their work with great effort and intent, and presented an outstanding report of their research findings to the 1998 convention. Thereafter, Brother Heather Lyons' Membership/Extension reference committee took over the responsibility. Their committee basically approved the task force's recommendations on this single-gender matter, which meant to "Allow single-gender chapters chartered prior to 1976 to remain single-gender, and any other chapters wishing to charter or recharter shall be co-ed."
<BR>
<BR>At the 1998 Convention, I recall observing from the non-voting delegate area (peanut gallery) approx. twelve (12) midnight by a ballot vote, the commitee's recommendation was approved by the voting delegate assembly with over a ninety percent (90%) majority vote. Thus, single-gender chapters chartered prior to 1976 are allowed to remain single-gender.
<BR>
<BR>I believe the single-gender case is now "Closed." So why? are we re-living this "Closed" issue again? Can't we just all get along? and advance forward to greater and more important matters involving our beloved fraternity for upcoming New Orleans 2002? Perhaps, we all could enjoy and relax more leisurely at this convention and others forthcoming for a change, right?
<BR>
<BR>P.S.: If any of my comrades in the 1996 Chapter Operations reference committee wish to further comment, remark, or correct me regarding this matter, please do so.
<BR>Also, I would like to hear from any of you. Its been a long time.....since our collaboration and team-oriented effort those four (4) days in 1996.
<BR>
<BR>In LFS,
<BR>
<BR>Irwin Chui
<BR>Section 4
<BR>Region X
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_a2.24b7aa05.29fbe866_boundary--
