[22632] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Consistent Sectional chair start date?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Hunter)
Tue May 21 11:38:02 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F96bdVJWrGW6Ex3Akwt00001489@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 10:37:44 -0500
Reply-To: Ken Hunter <kwh_apo@hotmail.com>
From: Ken Hunter <kwh_apo@hotmail.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
A few thoughts to add:
1. Personal qualifications on a subject may enable you to find the flaws in
the statements of others. Just be careful not to make it sound like those
not as "qualified" as you are on a subject are stupid.
2. The issue of whether or not to provide SC's with consistent terms really
comes down to which interest you are interested in serving. As a (former)
regional staff member and current alumni, I would probably like to see some
order on a broad scale and an end to the "silly season" of changing SC's
during the spring conferences. However, if I were an Active, I would
probably look at it in small scale and desire to see the transfer of power
as soon as possible after the election. In other words, I would want for
the new SC that my chapter had a chance to vote on be installed at the
conference.
Since we as a fraternity are supposed to make decisions that bring the
greatest positive yield to the active, it is best to leave the SC terms as
they are.
3. Speaking on the matter of terms for SC's. What about term limits? I do
think that they would be good for National Board Members, but what about for
SC's?
In L, F, and S,
Ken Hunter
>From: Mark Stratton <mark_stratton@YAHOO.COM>
>Reply-To: Mark Stratton <mark_stratton@YAHOO.COM>
>To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>Subject: Re: [APO-L] Consistent Sectional chair start date?
>Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:09:39 -0500
>
>Brother Joel Natt wrote:
>
> >I agree and disagree (yes I am on both sides). I believe that as Randy
>points out to have a consentient start date will benefit the fraternity and
> >the students. It would create for a clear period of both transition and
>closer; additionally it would allow the both the National Office and the
> >students time to not only finish the year with the same person, but
>address any final concerns that the out-going Section Chair was dealing
>with >thus ensuring for a clear transition.
>
>I don't see how this is any benefit to the students (I don't think it's any
>more detrimental than having the SC take over immediately after election),
>though I suppose it would be (administratively speaking) easier for the
>National Office.
>
>Here is my concern, however. While many sections have their elections in
>the spring, some (I believe) may do them, say, in the fall. If you have a
>uniform date (June or July 1, for example), you'l have a significant period
>of time where the incoming chair won't take office and the outgoing chair
>is a completely lame duck. And there's no guarantee the outgoing chair
>will "deal with any final concerns."
>
>Sections should be able, I think, to choose the manner that is best for
>them - students in one section may neither need nor want such a time frame,
>while others may very well need it.
>
>Frankly, I don't see a *need* to establish a uniform date for section
>chairs to take office (and the notes earlier about the difficulty that
>waiting presents in selecting staff cannot be ignored). It might be a good
>thing, but I'm not convinced it will be a good thing, nor am I convinced it
>makes things better. Given that, I'd be hard-pressed to support it (not
>that my support is necessary, mind you.)
>
>I don't find any positive benefit to the students or sections; I only find
>a benefit to the National Office, and it's only a marginal one at that.
>I'd have to say this isn't a particularly necessary change.
>
> >Furthermore it would allow the in-coming SC to get to know both the
>students and existing staff to better help them assemble a Staff that will
> >support the Section better.
>
>By and large, the students and staff already know this person (it happens
>sometimes that isn't the case, but I suspect that's pretty rare.)
>
> >Think of it like the Presidential or Congressional Elections, they have a
>period of transition and everything works for them still.
>
>Alright, the political scientist in me (and the student of American
>government, I might add) wants to pull what's left of my hair out. There's
>a reason there is a waiting period - there must be time to investigate
>contested elections, people (congresspersons, for example) have to find new
>residences in Washington, hire a staff, etc. NONE of these (except maybe
>finding a staff, and even then,it's not nearly the same) exists in the
>situation we're talking about. It's easy to want to always make parallels
>to American government, but frankly, it's of very little use. They NEED
>the transition time; we do not.
>
>But this is certainly an interesting discussion. I love these types of
>philosophical debates.
>:-)
>
>Fraternally,
>
>Mark Stratton
>Region VI Parliamentarian
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
