Sorority By-Laws and when there are exceptions
 

:confused:
Has anyone heard of a sorority "slating" committee making exceptions to their by-laws for an incoming President? My friend's daughter's sorority By-laws state that for someone to be eligible to run for President, they must be a member of the Executive Committee for a minimum of a year - they made an exception to this By-Law and selected someone who has only 3 mos of experience on the Exec Committee. Has anyone heard of this happening? Any feedback would be welcomed!

Is it possible that this is okay if the chapter adviser or someone else approves it? Have you seen the bylaws or have you just heard this to be the case? Because I wouldn't be surprised if there is a clause that states this is okay.

I am not sure about a clause, but my friend's daughter is pretty certain this is the rule. It was even discussed during her interview - they asked her about the candidate and she told them she did not know she was running for Pres because she assumed she couldn't because of the 1 yr exec comm rule. This individual told her she was running for VP. The interviewers told her they were aware of the by-laws, but were considering her any way. If rules are rules, what qualifies and individual for an exception? If you make an exception for one, what happens to the next person, and so on???

It depends on the chapter. In my chapter, the chapter advisor can approve an exception if the nominating committee wants to slate someone.

I believe they could vote to suspend the By-law, but someone should review Robert's Rules. Also, that would have to happen before the election and should get approval from whoever it is that approves the By-laws. It may just be a rumor too. Your friend's daughter should read her copy of the local and national by-laws.

Last night during Chapter, the President told them the issue would not be discussed until next week. She knew there was a lot of dissension in the house, but said they selected the best person which was approved by their Advisor. My friend's daughter is upset, not just because she didn't get the position, but rather how the situation was handled. The individual they selected was also her roommate who did not disclose she was running for Pres - she told her she was running for VP. It ended up that she got Pres (only 3 mos of Exec Comm experience) and the other roommate got VP - it sounded like it had been set for months. There was another candidate, who would have also made a good Pres, she deferred the position they slated her for because it was her last pick. I thought sisterhood was about honesty and trust, instead of deceit and manipulation? Now they have a "divided" house instead of a "united" one. I am just trying to find some fairness in this Greek process and sharing your experiences is helpful...thank you.

The "one year" phrasing could just mean that the nominee for President has served on the executive council prior to being President. I would assume that she replaced someone on executive council in order to be in her position for 3 months, but it does show that she has executive experience within the sorority. In this case, it would seem as though they acted in the spirit, not the letter of the by-laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Slate just the committee's recommendation for the future executive board ... in which case each chapter member can vote for someone who was slated or for someone they believe would do a better job. I really don't see the big deal here. It is similar to a Union endorsement of a particular political candidate. The Union can give their recommendation in a public forum but it is up to the voters to ultimately make their own decisions.

Perhaps the sorority's published qualifications for President included a line such as "Any exceptions must be approved by the Chapter Advisor, Regional Director, etc." (As my sorority does.) And as to the friend not disclosing that she was running, it could very well be that she was NOT running until asked to do so by the slating committee in her VP interview.

Over the years I have served on MANY slating committees and am now in a position where I must approve the slating committees' decisions. I have seen a great many instances where it was prudent and in the best interest of the chapter involved to give approval to rule exceptions. And again, in most of these cases, the candidates needing the exception had no idea that they were being considered for President until an interview.

And KC is absolutely correct. Ultimately it comes down to a chapter vote. So in the end, if the chapter members don't want someone who has served only 3 months on Exec, they don't have to elect her.

As a parent...or the friend of a parent...I would recommend staying out of the officer selection process of any sorority.

Everyone's input has been appreciated...will wait to see what happens next week when the members get a change to vote.

It's not even her daughter, it's her friend's daughter. (supposedly)

We frequently suspend the bylaws to allow all sorts of people to initiate, pledge, participate, take EC positions, etc. However, we require a near perfect vote and we have some pretty impassioned speeches beforehand. I am sure if somebody was running for Prez, and their opponent didn't meet the criteria, they'd raise a big stink about it, especially since they'd put in the legwork and done the right things.

Sounds unusual to me.

Thomas

I would think that this would be something that the chapter should vote on.

The girl could always make a motion to do so; i.e., "I move to allow the chapter to vote on whether to allow X to run for president." They would then vote - if the chapter approves the motion, the chapter then must vote on whether she is eligible or not.

It's foolproof - they cannot tell you no if the chapter votes to do it.

Some comments from a parliamentarian.

It's "Bylaws". One word, no hyphen.

You really can't suspend your bylaws. You can suspend certain items, but they must be of a purly procedural item. Not sure if this one (requirement to run for office) is something you can suspend. Is it being suspended for ALL candidates, or just one person? Sounds to me like an exception is being made for one person, but not another, which is unfair.

The purpose of having a nominating committee is to ensure you have a complete slate of candidate for all offices. And candiates need to meet certain criteria, they shouldn't be putting them up as candidates. Your org SHOULD still allow for additional nominations from the floor, and write-ins should also be allowed. Elections should be by secret ballot, with votes for each office. (ie, you don't vote in the entire slate).

Your bylaws should clearly set down how to conduct elections (your parent org may also have policies that set things out a certain way). These procedures will always superseded what is stated in Robert's (Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised is the current version).

Hope this helps.

The following statement was made on the forum of the Official Robert's Rules site:

"Bylaws may never be "put aside". Certain rules (even if contained in the bylaws) may be suspended but rules regarding eligibility for office are not among them."

AFAIK, your advisor has no power to overrule your bylaws. Not certain about your parent org.

A better idea would be to put such a policy in your standing rules, which can more easily be suspended or gotten rid of if your chapter is in need of doing so.

If, of course, the org's parliamentary authority is in fact Robert's Rules of Order ;)

I think most parliamentary authorities would probably say the same thing.

Most of the major parliamentary authorites agree on the basics (common parliamentary law), but different on some of the details. Suspention of bylaws would be something basic and fundamental.

A mistake many people make is thinking the different PA are very different (comparing 'apples to oranges' if you will), when they are fairly similiar (more like comparing different types of apples).

(course, don't have my copies of them right here at hand to quote you).

Also, about 90% of orgs use RONR. Second most popular is The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure (TSC).

Jeez, I was just being playful, bro.

I was not offended by your comment.

I was replying mainly for the benefit of others who may not have a very good understanding of parliamentary procedure and the like.

Having some experience trying to teach parly pro to high school & college kids who have some very poor understanding/misunderstanding of it, you get use to having to some strange ideas out there... :) (or should that be :( ?)

I can speak from my experience here on selective memories regarding chapter by-laws. I'll just say it isn't unheard of for adults to play politics, too, and sometimes a favorite candidate might get a leg up on a technicality. It is dishonest, based on what you've told us, and it is suspicious, but at this point, unfair as it is, there isn't much that can be done. If the chapter chose this girl as their president it might cause even MORE bad feelings and more damage to take that decision back. Chances are many of them are oblivious to these rules if they have never been on EC themselves, and don't really realize what's going on. Maybe this girl will be a good president, but if not, those in charge have only themselves to blame for letting her run with less experience. The situation should probably just be left to die. I hope the girls that feel slighted will be able to push their feelings aside so that this won't ruin their experience. It's a hard thing to do, but in the long run it will probably all be ok, and they will be happier members if they let it roll off of their backs.

The outgoing president of my sorority had never served in an exec position when she was slated. Nobody who had been on exec wanted to be president, and most of them were seniors anyway. So the advisers got together and chose our fall formal chair.

From my experience, chapters (and any group for that matter) need to be very careful about eligability requirements for officers (X amount of time in the org, certain positions must be held to be eligable for others, etc).

What might seem like a good idea when your chapter/org is large and there are many people who meet the requirements and are willing to run, can be a stranglehold on the org if you suddenly face a sitution where no one is eligable to run for all or certain officers.

A compromise would be that if your chapter insists on having such eligability requirements, that you put them in your standing rules and NOT your bylaws. This way you can suspend them if they are in your standing rules and do so at that meeting, whereas you can't supsend them if they are in your bylaws, and if you want to remove them, that will require amending your bylaws, which should be a non-trivial matter and will (and should) take some time.