[24855] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Board restructuring comments from Michael Gallagher, Active in Zeta Sigma Chapter (UDel)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad Barnett)
Mon Jan 9 11:50:12 2006
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:49:49 -0500
Reply-To: Brad Barnett <loaapres@apoloaa.org>
From: Brad Barnett <loaapres@apoloaa.org>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <43BFFCDA.10103@udel.edu>
I also must agree with the previous points presented.
While it's true that finances and classes do present a concern, I think
there are some brothers who are as qualified, if not more to sit on the
board.
However, where I do think there is a concern is process of electing a
student to sit on the board. Thus far, not outline has been given as to what
a student would need to do to qualify to sit on the board. Can a brand new
brother hold that position? Do they need to be a few semesters in? Where do
we draw that line?
As for chapter involvement, do we require that the brother immediate
withdraw their active status as soon as they are elected to the board? I
would assume that remaining an active and being a board member would be a
conflict of interest. If that becomes the case, does the brother go on
inactive status or do they become an alumni of their chapter? If so, do we
need to redefine the title of alumni?
Just my two cents. :)
As always, yours in Leadership, Friendship and Service,
Brad Barnett
Section 92 Chair
Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity
Preparing Campus and Community Leaders through Service
-----Original Message-----
From: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List [mailto:APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
Behalf Of Michael Gallagher
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:40 PM
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
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)
