[24499] in APO-L
[APO-L] Personal Analysis of Amendments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Finder)
Thu Oct 21 16:26:25 2004
"Reply-To: "
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:20:22 -0400
Reply-To: Randy Finder <naraht@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Randy Finder <naraht@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
My comments on the proposed amendments and resolutions for the 2004
convention. This is all personal opinion, except when specifically stated
otherwise...
http://www.convention.apo.org/legislation.pdf
First of all, this is probably the fewest proposals I have seen in years.
And a very small percentage even have active brother sponsorship, much
less being the primary source.
This sort of leads into the first group of proposals. The Section 44 & 40
chairs with the assent of AGZ chapter (Houston Baptist U.) have proposed a
number of amendments dealing with alumni associations and alumni in
general. The first four, which constitute the Alumni Relations Ref Comm's
entire work, would tighten the process of creating an AA by requiring that
the local SC & RD be consulted, that it have at least 5 members, that it
be approved by a chapter related to its area of coverage and making sure
that the members have actually graduated. I'm not sure if these proposals
come from a specific set of incidents that one of the section chairs had
with an Alumni Association, but I would hope that if it is, then
information on that would come our at least in Ref Comm testimony.
The remaining proposal would restrict the ability of proposing legislation
for alumni or groups of alumni so that they could do so only with the
assent of an active chapters. I don't like this, if only because the
National Board often has amendments of its own to propose. The National
Board has also proposed an amendment limiting those who can propose
amendments to chapters in good standing, recognized AAs, sectional and
regional conferences, National Committees and the NBD. It also makes it
slightly easier to bring proposal to the floor that have been turned down
by reference committees. The second part is fairly resonable as among
other things requires that Non-voting delegates don't have to be tracked
down. The first is basically to keep single brothers (active) or alumni or
unrecognized groups of brothers from making a proposal. While this would
affect my proposal, it seem much more aimed at proposals such as those by
Brother Bryant.
Brother Bryant's proposals. There is *quite* a bit of background that is
needed to understand where, IMO, he is coming from. (I've spent about 10
minutes trying to figure out how to phrase this.) Each extension effort
is different and as such the Sectional staff deals with the differently.
However some characteristics of the school and the group make certain
problems more and less likely. One of those is that extension efforts at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities may have difficulty
recruiting from both genders. If this problem is diagnosed in a particular
extension effort, then the RD and SC have a responsbility to ensure that
this problem is remedied before the group charters. That may include
the RD stating certain objective requirements that the group must meet
before the RD will sign off the application. The RD may also judge that
the involvement of particular people in the extension effort is more
likely to exacerbate the problem. The proposals, IMO, are an effort to
prevent the PDs,RDs, and SCs from doing the types of things that occured
around the events that lead to Brother Bryant's suspension. As I support
those actions which I understand took place in that regard, I oppose the
resolution and amendments.
The Awards and Appreciation Ref Committee work rotates around one brother,
the late John Grossi. On the one hand naming an International Extension
award for him, on the other creating and naming a "Man Mile" award for
him. I'm a co-sponsor for the International Extension, but I definately
think both should be considered (though doing both would be wierd).
Chapter Ops has a number of proposals, Jeremy Bingham's would change both
ten day deadlines for fees to the National Office to ten business days, I
don't have a particular opinion on this.
The move of the NYSD and NSW reports looks OK, I know they've had some
issues with getting that straight. My concern here is that this would make
*every* chapter not in good standing the moment after NSW ends until the
National office gets their report. I don't like things that force the
entire fraternity into being Not in good standing. There are however two
proposals from staff members to completely remove the reports from the
requirements. This may be the best solution.
Require chapter to keep a permanent email address. I'm not *quite* sure we
are to the point where this is appropriate, maybe in 2006. Would altering
this to "strongly encouraged" be in scope?
Finance has some juggling of the fees. While the move to lower initation
fees at the expense of AAMD's looks possible, the move to open up the
AAMDs to a range looks wierd. It never states who actually decides.
Changes to fees for Honoraries is also here, both to make it free and to
tie it to the same amount as the member initiation fee. Free is closer to
what normally happens (chatpers foot the bill), but I don't really have a
good feeling for how much support honoraries get. And there just aren't
that many of them...
Privacy Policy resolution seems OK, and I'm not sure who our Corporate
endorsements are of...
International Relations actually looks sort of cool. We've got proposals
for collection of educational equipement by APO-USA for schools in RP and
another for collection of scouting equipment for the RP scouts. One will
honor the 100th Birthday of the founder of APO-Phil, Dr. Ureta and another
proposes efforts to work with APO-Phil AAs for extension in Canada on a
formal basis.
One unfortunately is vague in that it proposes financial support to
studetns to attend the APO-Phil convention in May of 2004 (sic) and
APO-USA convention in December of 2006.
M&E reference committee has a potpouri of proposals including the above
mentioned one by the section 44 & 40 chairs.
My amendment would allow undergraduates 23 and over to be advisors *if the
chapter chooses to make them that*, they can of course be active instead.
We have a proposal to bring back extension membership, which doesn't seem
to have worked out, IMO and one to shorten the time that the mail votes
take on charter application (this one seems OK)
The proposal to add the bios of Lord Baden-Powell & William Boyce to the
pledge manual seems a bit much, I'd rather just encourage chapters to have
a copy of the BSA handbook...
Brother Bryant's proposal, see above...
It may be worthwhile to consider using a term other than pledge, I don't
happen to think so, but the study may be worthwhile...
Section chairs have a voice, I'm not sure adding them as a vote is
appropriate...
Adding that the Board members are elected using the standard rules and
exactly when their terms start is probably a good idea.
I think allowing Past Nat Presidents to change to emeriti status with
voice no vote is a good idea, there are PNPs who haven't been to a board
meeting for a very long time and there are things that take a majority of
the available votes. The only thing I'd want to add, now or later is a way
for someone who has done this to change back...
I don't like moving RD elections to the Regional Conferences. But I'm not
sure on moving the selection of the Regional Conferences.
*end part 1*
Randy
--
Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega
