[24859] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Board restructuring comments from Michael Gallagher, Active in Zeta Sigma Chapter (UDel)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Gallagher)
Mon Jan 9 16:48:14 2006
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:46:11 -0500
Reply-To: Michael Gallagher <famtree@UDel.Edu>
From: Michael Gallagher <famtree@UDel.Edu>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <017601c6153c$b5b69260$6401a8c0@bradhome>
I agree with Brad's concerns and questions. Regarding qualified
students, some may be qualified, but the question then is "How do we not
overburden them?" Others must agree with Brad on students being very
qualified. Could some of you comment on how to compensate for lack of
certain life experiences that could be helpful, for example, legal and
financial ones (buying a home, working full time, supporting dependents,
contract work, estate settlement, etc.)? In addition to Brad & Ken's
concerns, that is what my original comment about student ability was in
essence.
Michael Gallagher
Brad Barnett wrote:
> 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)
>
