[23070] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Felony
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry Marx)
Thu Oct 31 08:56:50 2002
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:55:40 -0500
Reply-To: Henry Marx <henry@HENRYMARX.COM>
From: Henry Marx <henry@HENRYMARX.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <F32001085EA6D211B61B00805F6FE69E04EAD5F1@exchsv2.ogsnet.ogs.state.ny.us>
>Upon seeing this discussion, suppose this amendment were amended to
>read "brothers must be found guilty of a crime of public record or
>an institutional charge, including hazing, to be eligible for
>suspension or expulsion".
>
>Since it's staying at or below the level of felony, this amendment
>is within the scope allowable for amendments to proposals.
>
>*rest of post deleted*
Ok. Let's talk about scope. *Henry puts on his Staff presenter hat*
For starters, let's make sure that everyone understands that
amendments to the National Bylaws (among other documents) must be
submitted 90 days before the first legislative session of the
National Convention and such proposals must be reported out to the
chapters 80 days beforehand. The idea here is to give chapters
notice of what might change beforehand. It prevents major changes
from taking place without giving the general membership ample
opportunity to oppose the change. Most APO chapters have a similar
stipulation of waiting a week or two before voting on changes to
chapter bylaws.
The idea of scope is that it's alright to change the proposal to
something that's less extreme without having to notify the
membership. For example, if someone proposes to increase Annual
Active Membership Dues from $15.00 to $50.00, the Convention could
settle on any amount in that range. It could increase them to
$50.00, to $18.00, to $23.72 or leave them at $15.00. It could NOT
however, change them to $50.01 OR lower them, unless there was a
separate proposal to do so.
That being said, I don't think that the above proposal would be in
scope because of the "institutional charge" clause. The original
proposal only deals with convictions in a court of law. Of course,
this is only my opinion and the Rules & Credentials Reference
Committee might not agree with me. But I bet that they will.
The other logistical problem that I see is that institutional charges
are usually not matters of public record. There would probably be no
way to prove that someone was even brought up on charges by their
institution.
One final note. I would like to STRONGLY recommend to everyone that
when you are drafting legislation--be it for the National Fraternity,
your chapter, or another organization--bounce it off a bunch of other
folks first. That's the best way to find any flaws and improve your
proposal's chances. I personally pride myself on my legislative
writing abilities. However, when I brought an idea that I thought
was excellent before some fellow Brothers, it was quickly shot down
and rightfully so. Despite the fact that I had been thinking about
the idea for a couple of years, I did not consider some HUGE flaws in
my proposal. So please, everyone, consult before you propose.
--
Henry Marx - Diet Coke - Mother Hen - henry@henrymarx.com
Alpha Phi Omega Section 80 & 84 Staff - http://www.serviceusa.org/
AOLIM: henrymrx - ICQ: 21256984 - http://www.henrymarx.com/
****NOW OPEN**** ---> http://www.verylate.com/
