[24847] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Board restructuring
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Jablon)
Sat Jan 7 14:18:35 2006
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 14:19:07 -0500
Reply-To: Michael Jablon <MJ1759@Albany.edu>
From: Michael Jablon <MJ1759@Albany.edu>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <002c01c613ba$bd128470$6401a8c0@jasonsroom>
Power point presentation can be seen here:
http://www.apor2.org/media/Board_Restructure_for_Regionals_Updated_10_27_05.
ppt
-----Original Message-----
From: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List [mailto:APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
Behalf Of Jason Moon
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:47 PM
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: [APO-L] Board restructuring
Could someone please inform me of where/who I can obtain a copy of the
powerpoint presentation from of the proposed Board Restructuring that was
presented at the Region IV Conference. I have sent a request to the
boardstructure@apo.org address a week ago but have not received a reply yet.
Or if someone has a copy, could you please forward it.
Thanks,
Jason Moon
moonjas@mindspring.com
Delta Chapter
Section 69 Chief of Staff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gallagher" <famtree@UDel.Edu>
To: <APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: [APO-L] Board restructuring comments from Michael Gallagher, Active
in Zeta Sigma Chapter (UDel)
> Brothers,
>
> I apologize for the crosspost, but I feel it appropriate to comment to
> my region and to those on the national listserv, as my RD said now is
> the time for discussion.
>
> There are some things on the PowerPoint presentation that may have been
> covered at regional conferences which I don't understand. Due to a
> family vacation, I was unable to attend my
> regional conference. How exactly is APO limited and malpositioned with
> regard to the items on the first slide? How are we not meeting our
> necessary understandings?
>
> Regarding the "Issues" slide: links between students and the board must
> be maintained according to the presentation. However, in my experience,
> direct linkage is inefficient and impractical in many cases, as those
> lower on the chain are underutilized and those higher overutilized.
> Believe me, I emailed and instant messenged board members, thinking they
> were in
> the best position to deal with questions and issues, being the most
> experienced. In 2002, I opposed student involvement on the board. I
> still oppose it for the hardships that would create for college students
> (financial and time). I run into these issues in my other organizations
> as a college student. We cannot expect a student to be able to handle a
> full course load, chapter involvement, travel (time and money), and
> decisions that students would be ill-equipped to make in most cases due
> to lack of experience. On a similar note, why would we want to
> diversify the experience and knowledge of the board? True, we could get
> other insights, but lower amounts of experience and knowledge could hurt
> us. How can we diversify the board suchly without negative effects?
> Likewise, fiduciary responsibility is not appropriate for a
> student. Fiduciary responsibility keeps at least some from serving on the
> board, so I like
> the addition of positions that don't require board membership. I
> suggest the student advisory board not be represented by a student on
> the board. Low experience raises the issue of student involvement.
> Inexperience of delegates is a problem. How do we, as a student/youth
> organization, maintain governance by that constituency without flaws
> that other organizations may lack? Granted, there are some issues that
> few of these organizations have yet to master. The most striking
> example to me is the "election" of officers who are unopposed. In
> Delaware we have a political problem of unopposed candidates which is
> beginning to be realized. Other states have varying degrees of this
> problem. Yet in the association governance area, the idea that there
> are few opposed candidates for top-level offices and that one gets into
> the leadership group at a position slotted for its holders to transition
> to other positions and eventually hold the top office still holds true
> in many organizations. In the APO-USA case, there is rarely more than
> one candidate for national president (although this has increased in
> frequency in recent years) and the national vice presidency is
> understood to be an 8-year commitment (4 as VP, 4 as president).
>
> Removing life membership and past presidents' positions is a good
> consolidatory measure, but I would feel cheated if an honor given to me
> were revoked. The British Crown revoked knighthoods due to war, but our
> Life Members of the Board have done nothing warranting revocation. Past
> Presidents should be at least advisory.
> Would it be possible for a past president to vote but not count against
> quorum if absent? I believe ex-officio members of our board DO vote.
> Is that correct? I agree with the rest of the "recommendations" bullet
> points. How would we determine which 2 previous presidents would serve
> on the board?
>
> How many program chairs would there be? I recommend that they be put
> into specific positions to best utilize their skills, rather than being
> elected or appointed at large and assigned duties that they may not be
> able to handle or at which they are not the best of the selected
> directors to do the job. Experience & eliminating monotony must be
> balanced, though, so a system to get new directors and/or new ideas
> should be put in place.
>
> How would the proposed benefits be realized besides general efficiency?
>
> Michael Gallagher, active in Zeta Sigma Chapter (University of Delaware)
> (I speak for myself only, I'm just letting you know how I am part of the
> fraternity)
>
