Letters on the Butt.
 

Couple of questions.

1) How do you feel about brothers wearing the fraternity letters on their butts?

2) Would you favor a resolution establishing national rules for wearing letters?
If so, would any of the following be on it?
a) Pledges may not wear the greek letters (spelled out in English is OK).
b) Petitioners may wear letters *only* if something they are wearing states Petitioning Group.
c) Fraternity letters may not be on the seat of sweatpants.

Anything else?

(For those swerving in, Petitioners are in Petitioning Groups which are the last stage of colonization)

Randy

Letters on the butt
Letters on the butt
Lookin like a FOOL
With yo letters on the butt

Could be worse. At least they ain't wearing Juicy. Then we will be having a whole nutha conversation.

1) Yucky.

2) If I were to introduce a bylaw amendment, it would say something like "The symbols of Alpha Phi Omega may only be worn by initiated brothers of the fraternity: actives, alumni, advisors, and honorary brothers."

I am not in favor of petitioners or pledges representing their membership through any insignia other than their pin.

I would also be in favor of empowering the National Board of Directors to institute a policy on letters -- after surveying the membership and reviewing similar policies from other organizations to compare best practices.

In other words, I would like the convention to define who may wear letters and for the national board to define how they may be worn.

CO SIGN!! I totally agree that Petitioners and Pledges should only being wearing their pins and pins and buttons for Petitioners.

Also, I don't really favor the letters being worn below the waist...or on the back. Alpha Phi Omega on the back is different.

I'd be in favor of that.

Gamma Gamma hasn't allowed pledges to wear letters in the time I've been involved. It's a privilege of being a brother. I've never seen a pledge in Section 4 wearing letters aside from those on their pledge pin. I didn't realize there were any chapters that allowed pledges to wear letters.

As for the first question: I think it's disrespectful to the fraternity to have its letters on my behind. I feel the same way about underwear/thongs. :rolleyes: And, honestly, any writing on someone's butt is tacky, but that's a rant for another time and place.

I LOVE ME SOME GAMMA GAMMA! I met two of your brothers like seven years ago when the brother of one was visiting my alma mater. We've lost touch since then but had a good run of pen-palness.

Sidenote -- these types of traditions/rules can be enforced through our licensing agreements with vendors. For example, if you see letters on thongs then you KNOW it couldn't have possibly been made by an APO approved vendor.

We can do that, you know.

This does *not* need to be a bylaw amendment, this could be done with a resolution. Resolutions don't just have to be warm and fuzzy, they can have real teeth.

Petitioners are a fuzzy category. There, I think, the need for PR trumps the other issues. The best combination, IMO, is that they need to wear something larger than their petitioning pin indicating that they are petitioners when they wear letters.

Definitely should be done by resolution.

Sounds like a plan. :)

I know it doesn't need to be a bylaw amendment. But I think it should be. And this is no offense (or reference) to you personally, but I am getting a little annoyed with people telling (the collective) me what should and should not be in the bylaws. It unnecessarily stifles discussion among students and alumni who need to discuss these things and is starting to feel like a use of a particular person's position that oversteps from teaching into dictating. Let the reference committees do their jobs.

And I think we're also both aware that even bylaws amendments can lack teeth. Remember the National History and Archives Committee? Yeah, I barely do. And there is a whole litany of things regarding alumni relations which are being ignored altogether.

I am not quite at the point where I am pissed off, but I am learning about Alpha Phi Omega more and more each day, when to use legislation as a solution, and when to attempt to influence policy.

I'm the Bizarro JayBee.

1) Inappropriate. The reason for wearing letters, besides reminding the brother of their obligations and the teachings of APO is to serve as publicity. I'm not sure we want to advertise our fraternity this way.

2) Yes, there should be resolutions passed on who can wear letters and how. I've never heard of pledges wearing letters but if they are that should be discouraged. The same with petitioners. Since they don't know the meaning behind the letters at that point they should wait. It would be nice for them to have something besides a tiny little pin however to show their growing and deepening commitment to the fraternity.

3) though all this talk sounds great I need to ask: what type of resolution could the convention write that would actually be enforced. When I think of resolutions I think of nice letters of congratulations, statements on issues, and answers to questions being addressed. They don't seem like things people take all that seriously. I'm probably mistaken with that but I can't thing of any strong resolution off the top of my head.

^^^ The resolution that put the remaining all-male chapters on a plan/timeline for going coed comes to mind.

What about the National History and Archives Committee?

LOL.

Letts on the butt SO not cute!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxCSSzb0I9o

"What what, on the butt,
What what, on the butt,
You wanna put it on my butt?
On my butt?"

Though what I'm about to say isn't really about this thread, it is in response to this post. I am probably one of the more vocal people about what should and should not be in the bylaws.

First, I'll state that the Convention can put anything into the bylaws it wants. If something is illegal or in violation of the Articles of Incorporation, it's void.

Second, the point of my repeated messages regarding what should and should not be in the bylaws isn't an issue of POLICY PREFERENCE, rather, it's a statement of "how best is this policy adopted?" Some things SHOULD be in the bylaws, some things can be handled by policy or resolution, some by convention, and some by the Board. Some can even by done simply by action at the National Office.

All I want us to do (as an organization) is to get to a point where we quit trying to manage the Fraternity through the bylaws, which generally is for structure and the things so vital to the organization (that is, the things it considers important) that they aren't to be often changed. If you feel that a restriction on who can wear letters (and what you're saying is that it is a RIGHT of membership), then perhaps that is something for the bylaws. HOW Letters can be worn, or the implementation of that policy, really is NOT a bylaws issue, but a policy one (which the convention could adopt as well.)

I'm not trying to stifle any conversation about any proposed policy change (and that includes amendments to the bylaws.) What I AM trying to do, however, is get people to have that conversation in the most appropriate context - discussing an amendment to the bylaws is different than discussing a proposed policy, becuase the PROCESS is different. That's all I'm trying to do. I want people to talk about these things - it helps refine bad ideas into good ones, or good ones into better ones, or even bad ones into nonexistent ones. I just want them to talk about them in the context of the most appropriate venue for them.

I do not make apologies for trying to have these discussions in a way that (a) results in the most efficient and effective use of the convention's time and (b) yields the best possible result for the advancement of the Fraternity.

Mark

The Fraternity's Risk Management Policy is one example. It was adopted, as I recall, at the 1996 National Convention. Though I don't think it had the words "resolution," it nevertheless was a policy adopted, but yet is not part of the bylaws.

Mark

Mark,

What you think you are doing, what you are actually doing, and how it makes Brothers react are probably three different things.

I ask that you take a hard look on your approach and determine whether it is what's best for the brotherhood, or if what you intend can be proactively teachable through alternative methods such as conferences, conventions, communication through section chairs, etc.

The brothers who are posting these ideas for bylaws concerns on facebook sometimes are brothers initiated within the last two years or alumni who have no other outlet to discuss.

Again, the approach is what troubles me, not the intent. It makes me not want to openly discuss bylaws proposals.

See, I knew you were talking about me. :-)

But it's a fair point, and I'll try to post something on the other group later to try to provide an explanation on the difference betweeen bylaws and resolutions/policies.

But I absolutely am not trying to stop people from discussing these things, but I do try to get them to think things like, "is this necessary?" or "is this the best way to accomplish this?" That's really what I'm trying to get to.

I'll try to put up something that's more educational/instructive.

But the ability of persons to propose these ideas, and to have people discuss them, improve them, find the best way to make the best things happen - that's the important thing.

Let me give you an example. A few years back, someone wanted to propose making the liaison from the BSA (who sits on our Board) a voting member of the Board. That person is already a voting member. If no one had said anything, that would have been a bylaw proposal that would have gone to a reference committee, that would have been required to be reviewed by that committee, receiving testimony, etc. only to find out that the whole thing was unnecessary. That would have meant that committee would have spent all that time - for nothing. That's not even a teachable moment for the committee, but it IS A teachable moment for the Brother who proposed it, and for the Brother(s) who gave him the wrong information. People have to be able to weigh in on those things. Maybe what you're saying is that *I* shouldn't be the one to weigh in (but I do so based on my experiences and knowledge in this area.)

It's much like the discussion about resolutions. The myth in APO is that resolutions aren't enforceable, and just isn't true. We have to dispel that myth.

Thanks for the note - I appreciate it.

Mark

Didn't one of the last two or three conventions finish with actual business sometime in the morning of the 30th? I remember being surprised when I found out that it had finished as early as it did. Is going back to a three day convention a reasonable target?

BTW, the length of the conventions is as follows...
By mail: 1926 and 1928 (not sure of the length of the second part of 1928)
Two days: 1932, 1934, 1938, 1940 & 1946
Three days: 1936 (Our tenth anniversary celebration), and 1950-1986
Four days: 1988-Present.

Hmmm. Good question, Randy. I don't know that anyone has really talked about going back to 3 days.

The last Convention finished fairly early on the 30th (I BELIEVE it was late morning, or maybe around noon - I don't quite remember.) Part of that was driven by the fact that there was less legislation, but what there was, generally, was more substantive. And, reference committees (because of a lighter work load) were better able to devote time to really getting into proposals. It's all a balancing act, really.

So, I don't know if we'd look at going back to 3 day conventions or not. But, however long the convention is, shouldn't be dominated so much by legislation that voting delegates can't participate in other convention activities. We should not submit fewer pieces for the sake of getting out earlier, I don't think - rather, we should submit only those things that really require the time of the convention. That might mean a longer session one time, and a shorter one the next, or whatever. That's only opinion on my part, however.

Mark

I beg to differ. Delegates are there to do the business of the fraternity. Participating in other activities is a bonus. This is just my opinion as a former delegate.

Well, only a fraction of the voting delegates are on reference committees, so remainder can do things on the first two days.

As an aside on that topic, have we had enough Region XI delegates for all of the reference committees?

Randy

In general, yes, I agree with you. But we shouldn't have any more business than we need to have. So, I'm not for a shorter legislative session - if there's work to be done, then we do the work. But we shouldn't be making work just to make work, either.

Mark

I always thought this was the rule. It certainly is/was in Mu Chapter when I pledged/was active (okay, so that was many years ago...) It was a surprise to me when I found out it wasn't an official policy.

From what I understood from when the University of Maryland Eastern Shore Petitioning effort was going on (late 1990s?) was it was *regional* policy that the Petitioners could wear letters, but only if they were wearing something that indicating that they were a Petitioning Group as well or as part of it.

This lead to probably the single largest "you have got to be sh*tting me" moment in my 25 years as a brother, when a member of the group claimed that the PO on the sleeves of their jackets stood for Petitioning Organization. They must have thought that everyone on staff had forgotten that the charter being reactivated was "Rho Omicron".

Uh, as someone who setup the legislative FB group, I don't see Mark's comments as being an issue.

What I do see as an issue, based on some comments on this thread, is the attitude that only things in the bylaws are enforcable or the like.

Sorry, just not so.

People need to understand that Bylaws are but ONE of SEVERAL documents that guide organizations.

You have:

* National/state laws
* Articles of Associations/Articles of Incorporation
* Bylaws
* Special Rules of Order
* Standing Rules (which includes any policies/procedures)
* Parliamentary Authority

For APO as a National Organization, we have several standing rules:

* Convention Standing Rules (adopted at the begining of the convention. They seldom change much from year to year).
* Risk Management Policy
* Membership Policy
* National Pledging Standards

These are all adopted by the legislation at Convention, and changed by them.


Mark's point, and I think its a good one, is to get people to think about their proposals BEFORE they propose it. Do we really need it? Could it be handled other then by changing the bylaws (say thru a resolution or the like)?

This is part of the reason why some of us created the old Yahoo Groups for legislation (and why I created the FB group). It gives people a forum for discussion their ideas before proposing it. Maybe some won't be proposed. Maybe some will become a better proposal. Maybe some good proposals will get some additional people to support it. You could almost call it a sort of "pre-reference committee" in a sense.

^^^ And the way to do that is proactively, on an ongoing basis, through the mechanisms which already exist to train chapters, leaders, and voting delegates at NCPC and before, good reference committee advisors, and by allowing the reference committees to do their jobs.

Do all Regions have NCPCs?(This did abbreviate to National Convention Planning Conference, but at the last sectional, the P was something other than Planning) I know Region III does but I'm not sure about all of the others, I thought at least one region called it something else.

Hmm. A resolution to encourage NCPCs or the equivalent...

I didn't know that it might just be a Region III thing.

AFAIK, few Region do them.

Region IV does not, tho I know some sections have tried to put something similiar together.

H*ll, it was like pulling teeth to just get my chapter to do something like this on a smaller scale within the chapter. Try getting several chapters together to do this??? Good luck.

Oddly enough, having Fall Regionals rather than Christmas/New Year Regionals (or in the case of Region VIII, January) might make a difference. With Regionals in the fall in the odd years, the idea of filling the "empty" semester with NCPCs might seem to make more sense.

Fall Regionals wouldn't work for my Region (its been considered). I can't speak for other Regions and how it would work/not work for them.

Why not?

Problem would be *when* during the Fall. With football schedules in the South (we have a LOT of football schools), it wasn't possible to find a date that would work, plus the issue of travel from around the Region.

We have considered it. And usually after everyone yet again looked at it, we go back to our usual date.

So for us, the period between Xmas & New Years has worked.

In Region VI, our Regionals are in the fall and we have several big football schools (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern). If Christmas/New years works for your schools, then it works for your schools. I think we prefer to give that time to our students to be with family and/or go to their respective bowl games instead :)

We used to do a Region Rally in the fall leading up to convention that was not well-attended. Sections 53/55 have a fall bi-sectional conference in non-regionals years for a very long time, as does Section 50, although it is more of a single-day event since the 6.5 chapters in that section are only about an hour to 1.5 hour drive from each other.

I know Region IX has a Region Rally that used to be well-attended, but I do not know since I have not been in a few years.

Again, we couldn't find a weekend during the Fall that works for us. As they say, YMMV.

And I've never found the time between Christmas & New Years to be that important in my family or in the families of any of my friends. Growing up, all our family gatherings with relatives was BEFORE Christmas. Once Christmas was over, relatives went home and there was nothing to do. Many scout councils are now running "winter camps" and week-long youth training during that time of the year and are very successful.

I think it's disrespectful to wear your letters on your butt. I wouldn't ever sit on my letters! and I do agree with pledges having the organization's name spelled out and not wear its letters in any form.

I would never allow a brother to wear my letters on his butt, he's disrespecting me and every one of my brothers by doing that. As far as pledge wear goes, my chapter has a strict policy for it; nothing but the bid day shirt can have anything with ATΩ letters on them. That includes spelled out. For big bro/little bro reveal most of the big bros buy their little bro a stitched letter shirt, but make them wait until initiation to wear it. It works, nobody ever complains, and as a pledge it really put what it meant to wear letters into perspective for me. Just my two cents, and you get the glory of being my first post, so congrats :)

This is more or less APO Policy.

Items that show MEMBERSHIP are restricted to Brothers. Letter shirts/stich shirts, etc, are seen as signs of membership.

Items that show PARTICIPATION are ok for non-Brothers (ie pledges) to wear. Typically such items have "alpha phi omega" spelled out, not the greek letters. These would include conference t-shirts and the like.

there is nothing wrong with a chapter creating a shirt for the pledges. They will usually spell out APO.

PG members must indicate in their promotional materials that they are a PG. They can't wear items that indicate they are members of APO. But items that show they are a PG of APO is ok. So I guess having APO in greek letters AND indicating they are a PG would be ok.

I think most of us agree that it (or something close) should be policy, but if it *is*, we would like to know where it is written down and why it isn't something easily accessible to the brothers.