[23148] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Issue Two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Risner)
Tue Nov 12 09:21:44 2002
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:29:13 -0500
Reply-To: Jason Risner <jason_risner@ATT.NET>
From: Jason Risner <jason_risner@ATT.NET>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.1021111233307.538999778E-100000@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Randy,
I would like to take the opportunity to address your concerns regarding my
chapter's pledging program.
My chapter's rules on barring a pledge's activation make it extremely
difficult to blackball anyone in the manner you described.
First of all, missing blackbook or plaque signatures do not justify a valid
reason to not activate a pledge. My chapter has never used missing
signatures as a justification to block a pledge from activating.
The requirements to block a pledge's activation were very strict. Dissenting
brothers have to demonstrate that:
- the pledge did not successfully complete the pledging process (usually
resolved by allowing the pledge to activate upon successful completion)
- the pledge's conduct put the chapter in a position of criminal prosecution
or civil lawsuit
- or, the pledge repeatedly and willfully conducts himself in an unbrotherly
manner, and refuses to change his conduct
Before dissenting brothers can vote to block a pledge's activation, they are
required to air their concerns to the pledgemaster prior to the voting
meeing, and give the pledge the opportunity to address those concerns.
If the pledge does not address the concerns to the dissenting brother's
satisfaction, that brother must submit a "NO" vote in writing, with an
explanation justifying the validity of that "NO" vote. If the brother does
not try to resolve the issue, and is unable to justify his "NO" vote to the
satisfaction of the pledgemaster, the pledgemaster can invalidate the vote.
To block activation of a pledge, at least 10% of the chapter or at least 3
brothers (whichever is larger) has to follow the process I outlined above
and cast "NO" votes which the pledgemaster feels are valid.
------
In the three instances a "NO" vote occured while I was in the chapter:
Spring '97 -
Three brothers "NO" voted, after airing their concerns and giving the pledge
opportunity to address those concerns. Satisfied that they followed the
process and had valid "NO" votes, the pledgemaster upheld them. Most of the
brothers who voted to activate the pledge left the meeting in protest before
the vote was completed, causing the meeting to adjourn due to not having
quorum.
At the following meeting they held a vote to activate the pledge. None of
the "NO" voters from the previous meeting were in attendance, so no "NO"
votes were cast. Thus the pledge was activated. The dissenting voters went
inactive in protest; one returned as an active a year later.
Winter '98 -
One person "NO" voted - less than the three required. The "NO" vote was
thrown out by the pledgemaster because he felt the person casting the "NO"
vote had a conflict of interest, and had not given the pledge reasonable
opportunity to address the concerns.
Fall '00 -
Pledge was "NO" voted because he had a substance abuse problem which
contributed to his illegal conduct during a chapter fellowship event.
Dissenting voters aired concerns about his conduct & substance abuse
problems with the pledgemaster, and gave the pledge opportunity to address
them.
At voting meeting the dissenting voters were not satisfied with the pledge's
progress (in part, he had not sought help for his substance abuse problem)
and cast "NO" votes, which the pledgemaster deemed valid and thus were
upheld.
Pledge was given another opportunity to go through the pledging process the
following term, and successfully completed it. During the second term, he
addressed the concerns about his conduct and substance abuse issues to the
chapter's satisfaction. He was then activated.
-----
The chapter has successfully defended it's pledging process to Sectional,
Regional, and National staff, in part because there are protections in place
to prevent the "blackballing" you felt is a concern.
In fact, there have been times the chapter has used descretion by activating
pledges who did not complete certain requirements - the chapter gives those
pledges opportunity to "make-up" at a later date or can simply waive them if
appropriate.
The only times I've observed my chapter exercise their right to "NO" vote a
pledge was when activating him would cause serious harm to the pledge's or
chapter's well-being, and only after given sufficient opportunity for the
pledge and brothers to work together to remedy the situation.
The rules satisfy the requirement you cited that no single brother can block
a pledge from activating. They allow the chapter descretion to not activate
pledges who are a significant threat to the chapter's well-being.
In L,F,S for Life
Jason Risner
Epsilon Lambda alum
