[24232] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Hey Everyone! I need some Feedback! (LONG)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Risner)
Tue Mar 30 23:37:56 2004
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:41:02 -0500
Reply-To: Jason Risner <zoomer69@mail.com>
From: Jason Risner <zoomer69@mail.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Hello Paul,
Your chapter is facing a significant challenge, and there are a lot of
issues at stake with the changes being proposed.. I'd like to illustrate
some of those issues that I encountered as an active. Hopefully this should
help you as you guide your chapter through this situation.
Quorum
--------
My chapter defined quorum as 1/3 of the active membership + 1 being present.
There's a balance that needs to be struck here. Make quorum too large, and
your chapter won't be able to conduct business (since brothers can't always
attend due to illness, death in the family, exams, etc.).
Make quorum too small, and the chapter could be thrown into chaos. Imagine
not inducting 1/2 of a pledge class or electing an unpopular chapter
president because a tyrannical minority took advantage of a small quorum
requirement.
Adjusting the quorum rules in the middle of a pledge class is asking for
trouble. If your chapter is experiencing significant difficulty in getting
actives to attend meetings, adjusting quorum will only treat the symptoms,
not the cause. It would also concern me as a pledge if my induction was
called into question because the chapter changed the rules in the middle of
my pledging process.
If your chapter considers this at all, the motion should include a clause
that prevents the change from taking place until after this pledge class is
inducted (and preferably after the new E-Board is elected). That will allow
the chapter to consider the motion and it's impacts fairly, without current
events coloring the issue.
Pledge Voting
---------------
My chapter was unique; whether a pledge completed the objective requirements
or not, they went through pledge voting. In fact, they did so twice. The
first vote occured halfway through the pledge period; it was intended to
monitor the pledge's process through the period, and address any problems as
they arose.
The second vote was final; the pledge had to receive a "no" vote from at
least 3 brothers or 10% of the chapter, whichever was greater, to be barred
from initiating. The brothers voting "no" were required to document the
issue with the pledgemaster, and give opportunity for the pledge to resolve
the issue. The issue could arise from not completing requirements, or from
the pledge's inappropriate conduct during the period. The pledgemaster had
the ability to invalidate "no" votes that were inappropriate. The chapter
could also choose to invalidate the vote merely by not approving the meeting
minutes at the following meeting; the minutes served as the official record
of the vote.
On the surface it may seem like an irresponsibly subjective process.
However, in the 7 years I've observed the chapter use this process, the
chapter successfully blocked initiation of a pledge only once. In this case,
the pledge had substance abuse problems, which lead to an incident that
nearly put the chapter in legal trouble. The pledgemaster and the chapter
upheld the "no" votes (even though the vast majority voted to initiate him).
That particular pledge came back the next semester to go through the
pledging period again, demonstrating both the pledge's determination to
become an active and the incredible support he received from the chapter.
This time, all the brothers (even the ones who voted "no" initially), chose
to initiate him.
On only two other occasions did I have opportunity to observe "no" votes
being cast, one of which caused great controversy in the chapter. In this
case, the pledge did receive sufficient "no" votes to block initiation,
which were upheld by the pledgemaster as legitimate. However the majority of
the brothers present chose to overrule this by promptly leaving the meeting.
This rendered the vote invalid under the bylaws as they had lost quorum.
Another voting meeting was held the following evening; with the "no" voters
not in attendence, the pledge was initiated. The brothers voting "no" chose
to resign from the chapter because of this; one ended up returning as an
active after a year.
On the other occasion, the pledge received only 1 "no" vote, which was
insufficient to block initiation even if it was upheld. The pledgemaster
invalidated the vote as he recognized there was a conflict of interest
present; the brother and the pledge had a relationship that began before the
pledging period and ended during the process.
The system was the subject of investigation by committee at a recent
Nationals; however, the chapter was able to demonstrate that the process was
both fair and reasonable to the pledge, if quite rigorous, and it was
allowed to continue using the process.
Completing Pledge Requirements
----------------------------------
This leads me to this topic, which is the crux of a successful pledging
program. A situation where a significant number of pledges fail to complete
the process suggests one of three things:
- The requirements are unreasonably stringent compared to those of active
membership
- The requirements are irrelevant to a pledge's success as an active
- The chapter substantually fails to enforce the requirements
As each chapter has a large amount of freedom in defining the requirements,
requirements vary according to each chapter's particular situation. Many
chapters I've observed only follow the guidelines outlined in the National
bylaws. Others add requirements as they see fit.
Assuming the requirements are in line with what is expected of an active and
are reasonable, the challenge then is for the chapter to uphold the spirit
of those requirements.
In many chapters, each pledge is paired up with an active brother who works
with the pledge in completing the requirements. That, in combination with
involvement from the pledgemaster (and the chapter), should identify when a
pledge is struggling, and provide the resources the pledge needs to
successfully complete the program. It should be clear to the pledge if he is
not meeting the standards of the program and risks the chapter voting not to
induct him.
All of this is pointless if the chapter won't vote to block induction of
pledges that don't meet the requirements. While it can be tempting for the
chapter to boost membership numbers by inducting "paper brothers", doing so
will be very dangerous for the chapter's health. Not only will it send a
message to the chapter that the requirements are BS, it will cause the
chapter to induct brothers who don't contribute to the chapter's programs
(aka, the "resume builders"). Neither the actives nor the pledges will put
investment into the chapter, which will dramatically weaken its membership.
The chapter should, however, reserver the right to induct pledges who show
dedication and determination to contribute to the chapter, despite their
failure to fully complete the pledging program. Blindly blocking induction
of these brothers without considering the circumstances is as dangerous as
inducting "resume builders".
I served as a "big" brother for a pledge who did fail to complete the
pledging requirements; in his case, it was due to failing grades on the
exams he took as part of the program. I encouraged the pledge to focus his
energies on classes he was struggling in that semester, knowing that the
chapter would recognize his dedication and his understanding of the
fraternity, even if he couldn't recite the names of all the national
presidents.
The pledge was initiated, and went on to successfully lead the chapter
through a difficult period. His induction could very well have made the
difference that kept the chapter from going inactive.
Hopefully this will help you as you help guide your chapter through this
situation.
In L, F, S for Life
Jason Risner
Epsilon Lambda alum
