[23035] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Joel Bryant
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Price, Todd)
Mon Oct 28 21:56:27 2002
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:56:20 -0500
Reply-To: "Price, Todd" <Todd.Price@DETROITDIESEL.COM>
From: "Price, Todd" <Todd.Price@DETROITDIESEL.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
The way in which the voting takes place on the convention floor, including
alumni representation versus active representation, is quite irrelevant.
Simply put, it is what it is. And since I don't recall legislation proposed
to increase the number of Alumni Voting delegates (in my humble opinion a
good thing), that won't change for at least two more years.
I am a little disturbed by the thought that the active membership is
incapable of making an appropriate ruling in the event that a Brother is
brought before the Convention on the question of Expulsion (assuming that is
what is going to take place at Convention, since no one has definitively
confirmed that yet). I will agree that for more minor issues brought up
during convention, they are often glossed over. But for something as severe
as expulsion, you better believe everyone will be eyes wide open, especially
if the motion for expulsion is challenged. I see no reason to beleive that
such a case against an alumnus will be less fair because of a lack of Alumni
votes present.
With respect to JAYBEE's comment that there must be exceptional
circumstances for expulsion, I could not agree more. In fact, I can think
of no cases to my knowledge that have occured without a crime having been
committed (assault on a Brother, embezzelment, etc...). I suppose in the
most EXTREME cases of unbrotherly conduct the question could be considered
(and for all those parli-pro types, yes, this is the ONLY thing that can be
considered), but we would (I think) have to be talking about a Brother going
around consistenly badmouthing the fraternity or inhibiting the mission of
this fraternity in an established pattern of conduct. I don't know what
happened, but I can think of absolutely no reason that a Brother should be
expelled from this organization for a single event where no crime (violation
of local, state, or national law) has been committed.
We will, of course, have to wait for New Orleans to find out what happens
(or even what happened to start this). But I say have faith, I have never
known Brothers in this fraternity to forget their duty nor their
responsibility in considering a question of such importance as suspension or
expulsion.
In Leadership, Friendship, and Service Forever,
Todd Price
Section 54 Vice-Chair
-----Original Message-----
From: JayBEE!
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Sent: 10/28/02 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: [APO-L] Joel Bryant
You know what, it is simply amazing is that an alumni is being
scrutinized, when he himself can only be representative of only (a
fraction of a fraction of a vote) when it comes to voting on issues
in the fraternity.
An undergraduate represents a fraction of the alotted two delegates.
As in if there are 10 people in the chapter. His representation is
one fifth of a vote.
In the case of an alumni member, if he is in an alumni association
of 10 members, he would represent 1 tenth of that association. One
fraction. But then, if there is 10 associations in his region his
representation would be one tenth of on tenth.
The point is even with that little of representation, and his life
membership his allegded actions will always have smaller weight than
that of an undergraduate. So it naturally if all is equal, there
will be no middle ground. It will always be in the best interest of
the Spirits and Standards to committee to believe and support
undergraduates. I just don't believe that it should ever come with
the consequence of suspending a single member unless there was
physical harm or a grave finanicial recourse. Neither of which was
evident in this case.
From what I understand there was a visitation from an alumni to a
campus that he is not from, through the invitation of campus
alumni. Through conversation, somebody got their feelings hurt and
felt like reporting it to the national office. And because it was a
new group sanctioned by the national office, anything they needed
they would get including taking some form of action against an
alumni with life membership.
To say that suspension was result of comparing hearsay, gives you
the newly developed extent to which a individual can be held
accountable.
JayBEE
Humility is must be learned
(you have to want it to
acquire it), but Imperialism
is hereditary, (you have to
want to remove it from your
system).
Get your Free 25/52 E-mail Account at http://25-52.zzn.com
____________________________________________________________
Get your own Free Web Email Service with POP access at
http://www.zzn.com
