[24444] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Cross)
Wed Sep 8 21:50:58 2004
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:51:50 -0400
Reply-To: section.74.chair@apo.org
From: Matt Cross <mrforklift@cfl.rr.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <37d15a100409081823574bfd2f@mail.gmail.com>
There is an inherent danger to allowing that type of veto power to the SC
and the RD -- since advisory membership is a type of membership in a
Chapter, giving veto powers to someone not from that Chapter goes against
the By-Laws where it says a Chapter can determine its own membership.
In all honesty, Chapters are facing more difficult issues than this in
regards to membership. I would rather not muddy the waters with this and
help the Chapters focus on structuring better membership programs that
accurately reflect the National Fraternity's goals and vision.
Matt Cross
Section 74 Chair -- Alpha Phi Omega
(407) 808-8170
mailto:section.74.chair@apo.org
http://www.section74.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List [mailto:APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
Behalf Of Mandy Hunter
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 9:23 PM
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
I thought I would write my prospective since I am the type of person we are
talking about being a young advisor and an older non-traditional student. I
started advising immediately after graduating at the age of 22. It was
really young. However, when I graduated it was with my associates degree. I
went to school for a year and a half right out of high school which is when
I initially pledged APO. After that year and a half, I took two years off.
I worked and supported myself completely financially during that time.
Most of my friends and chapter brothers who were still in school could not
relate to the "real world" experiences I had had. When I went back to
school at the age of 21 even though I was still considered a traditional
student due to my age, I did not fit in as a traditional student.
Upon completing my associates degree a year later, I moved out of my home
chapter's section and region. I moved in with my boyfriend at the time (now
husband) and and offered my services to the chapter, at the university he
was attending for graduate school, as a community advisor. This was a
unique chapter in that there had been a major rift at the end of the
semester before and all of the older active brothers had chosen to leave for
the most part and I was an average of
2 years older than most of the actives. I made mistakes as an advisor. I
doubt there is an advisor who does not make mistakes.
Some of my mistakes in the beginning were from inexperience. Some were
probably from youth. In all I advised that chapter for almost three years,
before my husband graduated and got a job that took us to yet another region
in the country. I plan on making contact with an new chapter this fall and
offering my assistance as an advisor.
However, in about a year or so I am hoping to go back to school and start
working toward completing my Bachelors. I am only going to be going
part-time and by that time I will be 26, have been married over a year,
working, and have spent 4 years working as an APO staff member on the
sectional, regional, and national level. I really do not have a desire to
go back to being an active. My active days were wonderful and I cherish
them, but I do not want to try and recreate them. I think I can best serve
the fraternity on the chapter level as an advisor.
I think a big part of the current rule is also that the national fraternity
is dependant on active dues, and do not want undergraduate students getting
all of the benefits of active membership (except voting and holding office)
and not having to pay anything. That is not to say that I think traditional
undergraduate students have the experience necessary to be an advisor or all
alumni for that matter.
My suggestion is that the issue be handled on a case by case basis with the
chapter, section chair and region director. If the chapter wants someone
who is a non-traditional undergraduate student to serve as an advisor let
them and the potential advisor go to the section chair and region director.
If everyone agrees that this person can do the job, then great but if the
section chair or region director do not feel it would be a good thing give
them the power to veto it. Age should not be the reason because people
mature at different rates based on different sets of experience. Plus I
would think limiting to a specific age could be considered prejudice and
may eliminate some good advisors who are currently serving.
So that is my story and my thoughts.
In L, F, and S,
Mandy Hunter
Former Advisor to BZ (University of Georgia)
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:01:59 -0400, Charles Brace <brace347@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students,
> except such Membership may be conferred upon undgergraduate students
> who were otherwise ineligible for Active Membership for the _______
> years preceeding the initiation of such undgergraduate students to
> Advisory Membership."
>
> all right, the first clause is from the national bylaws (or at least
> that's how it read in my outdated copy)...
>
> the second clause is an exception to the first...
> advisory membership may be conferred upon undergraduate students only
> when they could not have become active for ______ number of years
> prior to becoming an advisor....
>
> the language is a bit choppy...but it was the best i could think of at
> the time that would be bylaws appropirate...obviouslly, im open to
> better wording....
>
> basically, it would prohibit the recent alum from becoming advisors,
> but does so without providing an "age" limit...but it permits those
> cases where older non trad students could become an advisor despite
> the fact that they are undergraduate studetns
>
> now that i think about it...it doesn't really help the
> situation...technically, all students when they first arrive are
> "ineligible" for active membership
>
> so i think the language needs to be tweaked....but i think you get my
> idea
>
> --chuck
>
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:48:19 -0400, Michael Gallagher <famtree@udel.edu>
wrote:
> > Chuck, I haven't had time to read the slew of emails & respond to
> > them all, but I don't understand the language you are suggesting,
> > paricularly the second clause (funny for an Active who cited USTC
> > provision 501c3 at a CPW RT). Could you clarify?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Michael Gallagher
> >
> >
> >
> > Charles Brace wrote:
> >
> > > i think the whole point of the legislation was to allow older
> > > students who are technically undergrads to become advisors...it is
> > > meant to permit the "non-traditional" student who was never
> > > involved in APO, but has the experience that a chapter could find
> > > useful to still become an advisor
> > >
> > > the lower age restriction is to prohibit those very recent alumni
> > > who are going back for a second degree, or for those older actives
> > > who have been an undergrad for longer than the traditional 8
> > > semesters to be immediately elevated to the position of an advisor.
> > >
> > > i think the change makes some sense. think of this scenerio...a
> > > staff advisor...who works for the university in a non-faculty
> > > position, decides to take advantage of the school's employee
> > > benefit of attending classes for free or at a reduced rate....this
> > > advisor, by the fact that he/'she is taking undergrad courses
> > > towards a bachelor's degree is now considered an undergraduate
> > > student....so now, this advisor (maybe long time advisor), must
> > > resign from his/her position as advisor because of our national
bylaws.
> > >
> > > or better yet, your scouting or community advisor goes back to school.
> > >
> > > the point of prohibiting undergraduate students from becoming
> > > advisors stems from a traditional view of the college world. the
> > > fraternity, as a policy, does not want students who just got out
> > > of high school, and who could easily pledge, from getting around
> > > the pledging requirement by becmoning an advisor.
> > >
> > > note, that the rule is NOT that students cannot become advisors.
> > > graduate students are permitted to become advisors (even if that
> > > grad student is 21 and just graduated with a bachelor's)....also
> > > note that grad students are permitted to pledge (however, that may
> > > not be the case at every chapter, because of school rules)
> > >
> > > we say that grad students, although permitted to pledge, may
> > > become advisors because (1) they may have experience that the
> > > chapter could utilize; (2) they usually don't have the time to
> > > commit to being a full time active (yes, being an advisor is no
> > > where near the same committment as being an active).
> > >
> > > an older undgergrad also has the same reasons....they may have
> > > families or full time jobs that take up time....they may have
> > > world or other applicable experience that could assist the
> > > chapter....further....while there are some exceptions, many
> > > non-traditional undergraduate students do not want to become
> > > actively involved in student organizations, (i'd imagine partly
> > > because student org membership is made up of younger, traditional,
> > > college students)
> > >
> > > ultimately, however, any change would do very little....i don't
> > > see any chapter going out and "recruiting" advisors from the
> > > non-traditional student ogranization. Many advisors are either
> > > school staff/faculty, fraternity alumni, or civic leaders
> > > (including scout leaders).....this legislation would merely permit
> > > those few cases where otherwise eligible adviors decide to go back
> > > to school to finish up or obtain a degree to continue to be or become
advisors.
> > >
> > > NOW, THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT
> > > is that by placing an age....we are (1) determining a base age one
> > > has to be in order to be an advisor...(2) saying that only those
> > > under this age are permitted to be active brothers.....
> > >
> > > while none of these statements are completely accurate...i feel
> > > that that will be the preception....
> > >
> > > for example....a younger, say age 25, non traditioanl student,
> > > decides to get involved in campus life, and wants to get involved
> > > in the fraternity...the chapter, knowing of the age provision,
> > > suggests that this student become an advisor...however, that
> > > student, wants to become an active member...now, this prospective
> > > pledge is basically told that he/she is told old to pledge and
> > > that he/she should consider becoming an advisor instead...the
> > > fraterntiy may lose a great active brother because of the age
> > > provision
> > >
> > > or, let's say that the student expresses concerns about the time
> > > committment in pledgeing (as many prospectives and even pledges
> > > currently do who are 18, 19, 20 years old). now, we have a
> > > student who wanted to be active, being admitted as an advisor
> > > because of time concerns, and who will, in practice, act as an
> > > active (and not as an
> > > advisor)
> > >
> > > our fraternity is diverse....we should not be placing age limits
> > > on levels of membership.
> > >
> > > so then, what do we do? if we don't adopt the age provision,
> > > university staff who go back to school and others such as that
> > > cannot become advisors or are forced to resign.
> > >
> > > if we do adopt the age provision, we begin to create the
> > > preception that we are only a fraternity for the traditioanl
> > > student....non-traditional students need not apply.
> > >
> > > i proprose the following language
> > > "Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students,
> > > except such Membership may be conferred upon undgergraduate
> > > students who were otherwise ineligible for Active Membership for
> > > the _______ years preceeding the initiation of such undgergraduate
> > > students to Advisory Membership."
> > >
> > > this avoids the preception of an "age" limit and solves the
> > > problems i mentioned abvoe.
> > >
> > > thanks for reading this entire post....and i hope that i've helped
> > > in the discussion....
> > >
> > > lfs
> > > --chuck brace
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:49:43 -0400, Brad Barnett <loaapres@apoloaa.org>
wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hey Randy!
> > >>
> > >>I don't normally reply to the listserv but this has caused my
> > >>interest to be perked.
> > >>
> > >>I think the inherent problem with this is that sometimes older,
> > >>undergraduate brothers are not always far enough removed from
> > >>being an active to be an effective advisor. The problem lies in
> > >>the fact, where do you draw the line? An advisor is there to
> > >>advise, and the danger is that it becomes problamatic in a lot of
> > >>cases for the older undergraduate brother to remove themselves
> > >>from chapter affairs. I found that in myself as well. I also find
> > >>that true with some new(and hell, some old alumni as well.) It's a
> > >>hard thing to remove yourself in that way in something that you've put
a lot into. I think it's just human nature.
> > >>
> > >>To quickly sum up, I think it would be a huge mistake to make that
change.
> > >>
> > >>Others thoughts?
> > >>
> > >>Fraternally,
> > >>Brad Barnett
> > >>Section 92 Chair
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List
> > >>[mailto:APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf Of Randy Finder
> > >>Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:34 PM
> > >>To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> > >>Subject: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
> > >>
> > >>I mentioned this before, but now with the deadline approaching,
> > >>I'd like to hear more opinions.
> > >>
> > >>The proposed amendment would change the last sentence of Article
> > >>III, Section 2, (4) Advisory membership from "Such Membership may
> > >>not be conferred upon undergraduate students." to "Such Membership
> > >>may not be conferred upon undergraduate students younger than age 23."
> > >>
> > >>A brother returning to college for a second undergraduate degree
> > >>or a student trying for a first degree after having all of her
> > >>children reach school age might feel more comfortable as an
> > >>advisor than as an active brother.
> > >>
> > >>Note, this does not remove any choices from the chapters, but does
> > >>give an additional possibilitie
> > >>
> > >>(Note making the proposed change as 23 allows any amendment of
> > >>this age upwards to remain in scope. An amendment of that age
> > >>downward would not be in scope. I personally think the age should
> > >>be a little older than that, but would like to give the most
> > >>latitude for consideration.)
> > >>
> > >>Looking for comments, possible support, opinions on why this will
> > >>destroy western civilization...
> > >>
> > >>YiLFS
> > >>Randy finder
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ________________________________________________
> > > Charles Brace, Esq.
> > > Admitted in Pennsylvania
> > > brace347@gmail.com
> > >
> > > Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity Pi Chi Chapter
> > > (Duquesne University) - SPC '97 Phi Chapter (Syracuse University)
> > > - S '02
> > >
> > > Region II Leadership Development Chair Achieve Director
> >
>
> --
> ________________________________________________
> Charles Brace, Esq.
> Admitted in Pennsylvania
> brace347@gmail.com
>
> Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity Pi Chi Chapter (Duquesne
> University) - SPC '97 Phi Chapter (Syracuse University) - S '02
>
> Region II Leadership Development Chair Achieve Director
>
