[23147] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Issue Two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cliff Burns)
Tue Nov 12 02:06:11 2002
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:06:14 -0600
Reply-To: Cliff Burns <crb99003@CUB.UCA.EDU>
From: Cliff Burns <crb99003@CUB.UCA.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
I cannot reflect back on my own pledging experience, because, in being a
charter member, I did not pledge in my chapter. I have, however, seen
different pledge practices in different organizations, including later
pledge periods in my own chapter. I am completely for pledges getting the
signatures of their members. It allows pledges to build relationships with
the members, and helps both parties get to know each other. The key is to
not let one thing become the basis of membership. I like how the pledge
manual puts it. "Pledges are allowed enough time to satisfactorily complete
pledge requirements." Satisfactorily is the key word. I would assume that if
a member had withheld his signature in my chapter, for whatever reason,
fault would not be placed on the pledge, but on the withholding member, and
that pledge would not be denied membership. Why? If that pledge had done
everything possible to complete the program, minus one signature, I would
say that pledge had satisfactorily completed the requirements. I would also
say that the member that withheld the signature would be dealt with
properly. If that pledge had not done anything becoming of a responsible
member; not getting any signatures, or not completing requirements, then I
believe that pledge would not be granted membership.
One signature will not keep any of our pledges out of our chapter. That is
why our program includes service hours, tests, homework, fellowships, and
anything else we can come up with to help our pledges have a more fulfilling
experience that will prepare them for membership and beyond.
Cliff Burns
Chi Chi Secretary
University of Central Arkansas
