[23710] in APO-L
[APO-L] Registration of Volunteers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Stratton)
Tue Apr 29 10:38:38 2003
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:38:32 -0500
Reply-To: Mark Stratton <mark_stratton@yahoo.com>
From: Mark Stratton <mark_stratton@yahoo.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Brothers,
Like Brother Price, I'm not entirely certain what has spawned this issue,
but it is before is so I wanted to offer my thoughts.
I think that is a good idea (and long overdue) to require the registration
of all volunteers to work in the name of Alpha Phi Omega, and to have them
sign and acknowledge the Risk Management policy as well. Years ago, I
complained that we required Chapters to do this but made no such requirement
of alumni associations. My general philosophy is that all members of the
Fraternity should be registered, and by all, that's just what I mean.
There is another component here, though, and that is a liability issue. I
am not attorney, nor have I taken a course in law (except Constitutional
Law). My sense is that the Fraternity has an absolute need to know the
people who conduct work on its behalf, if for nothing more than to afford it
some measure of protection should an issue arise. How could we be in a
defensible position if we do NOT know who our volunteers are?
These volunteers (and I am one) do work in the name of Alpha Phi Omega, and
accordingly, Alpha Phi Omega has an absolute right to protect its good name.
If they don't know I'm carrying on service in their name, it is hard for
them to hold me accountable should I do something that injures the name or
reputation of the Fraternity.
There are many policies that the Fraternity has adopted, either by
Convention, Board Action, or other means, that I do not agree with. As a
member, however, I am bound to obey those policies. Certainly, I would have
even been willing to have a fee for volunteers to register, but the
Convention rejected that. I accept that decision. The policy to require
the registration of volunteers, however, is a good policy, regardless of the
body which promulgated it.
If this is an issue that the Board did something that the Convention should
have done, that's a separate issue. In no way, however, do I believe the
Supreme Authority of the Fraternity has been violated or rendered moot or
inferior. If our members feel this is a policy we should not have, the next
Legislative Assembly can take appropriate measures to direct the Board to
repeal that measure. I don't think that it would be prudent, however, to
repeal this provision. I think it is an issue to address liability concerns
(in addition to PR uses - how many volunteers we have, a better sense of the
people giving of their times, etc).
Of course, this is all just my own personal opinion, and certainly should
not be construed to be represenative of any committee or group on which I
serve.
Fraternally,
Mark
