[24162] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Official Jeweler
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Allen Stratton)
Mon Mar 1 13:23:18 2004
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 13:23:05 -0500
Reply-To: Mark Allen Stratton <mark_stratton@yahoo.com>
From: Mark Allen Stratton <mark_stratton@yahoo.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Actually, resolutions that direct someone to do something are binding upon
that individual, provided what is being directed is possible/permissible to
do. If a resolution directed the National Executive Director to remove an
item from the Pledge Manual, barring some provision in law or a superior
document of the Fraternity, the National Executive Director would be
required to do so.
Let me say, though, that the suggestion Derek makes is the one I'd like to
see first attempted and that is to contact Brother London and get his
thoughts. We spend so much time at convention considering and debating
resolutions that could often-times be accomplished by just speaking with the
person involved. One of the things that I hope that would happen is that
those who choose to submit resolutions or proposals is to first see if there
is some other way to have it done than taking the time of the Convention.
If it can be accomplished in some other means, then let us try that.
For example, someone could introduce a resolution stating the the
format/template for legislation be in a particular type style, font size,
etc. But, rather than taking up the time of the Convention to deal with
that, that person could ask the National Convention Legislative Director,
"Hey, would this be possible?" If so, that's one less proposal for a
reference committee and the legislative assembly to deal with. It's an
ADMINISTRATIVE or EDITORIAL decision, not a substantive one. Those who
propose resolutions or amendments ought to first ask themselves (and others,
quite frankly) if such a proposal is necessary, or can it be carried out in
another matter.
Now, there may be issues where Brother A says the issue is substantive while
Brother B says it is editorial. That's a different matter. But I don't
think removing the suggestion that pledges know the Fraternity Jeweler is a
SUBSTANTIVE issue; *I* view it more as an administrative or editorial one.
Now, if the document actually made that a REQUIREMENT for pledges, that's a
different matter, but that isn't the case here (as I understand the issue).
At any rate, it would be my hope that we can reduce the number of proposals
that focus on this type of issue and let the convention concentrate on more
*substantive* policy issues for the Fraternity. If we can devote more time
for deliberations on those substantive issues, and less time on the things
that could probably be addressed in another fashion, I think the Fraternity
and the Convention will be better served.
Fraternally,
Mark Stratton
2004 National Convention Legislative Director
Brother Cashman wrote:
>If not, one could pass a resolution at the national convention in Denver to
> remove that particular item from the pledge manual;
> sort of like what was done in New Orleans to add the
> Oath of Loyalty and Service to the pledge manual.
> Granted, resolutions are non-binding, but they do
> carry a certain amount of weight in directing the
> staff and volunteers to carry out certain things that
> the active brotherhood wants. And as an example, the
> Oath of Loyalty & Service is now included in the
> pledge manual. So whether you want to add or delete
> something to or from the pledge manual or otherwise, a
> resolution would be the way to do it.
