Presidential Pre-reqs
 

Hello GC,

So I've got a question for anybody past and present about the position of president in a fraternity. We have a brother in my chapter that is seeking a special waiver of two requirements necessary to run for president.

1) live in the house the fraternity will associate with.

2) be a prior member of the Eboard.

This brother is a sophomore who pledged last spring and is currently service chair. His reasoning for not living with brothers is that he'd like to be an RA next year. I think both of these requirements hold significant value and that he needs to at the very least live with the brothers.

What are your thoughts or experiences?

Side note: we currently have 24 brothers and have signed a lease for a 13 person house next year. The lease is not yet full.

I kind of agree with the second, but not the first in all cases. I think the value of having an RA would supersede that of having an in house president.

Would you not be concerned about the time commitment that being an RA requires? We've had past brothers do it and to me it seemed like they were constantly busy.

Actually I would be. But different schools have different expectations for RAs.

These kinds of restrictions are always interesting. Basically, you have past bodies which think it's in the organization's best interest to substitute their judgment for the judgment of all future membership sets.

I can definitely see a strong argument for the second, as you usually want folks in that position who have experience; but I can also think of some great arguments against it. I'm my chapter's adviser, so I've worked with quite a few e-boards. Such a rule, limiting the presidency to the e-board isn't always the best idea. What if none of the people on your e-board are presidential material?

If you have some old bylaw which is preventing your group from doing what you think it should be doing, first try to find out what the reason for putting that bylaw in place is.

My philosophy about these sort of restriction is if you think your brothers are smart enough to take into consideration the fact that candidate A has exec experience and candidate B does not or whether they'd rather their President live in the house or be an RA , then there's no reason for the bylaw.

Lane swerve!

I think putting any restrictions on who can run is a bad idea. I am also against things like slating committees. I think they are, more often than not, used by an "in-clique" to keep other people out. This has been my experience with many, many organizations, Greek and not.

My chapter has no restrictions on running; the only restriction is that the person needs to be a brother to *hold* a position.

The idea is that the chapter will (hopefully) not vote in anyone who is not qualified. It's simply an unspoken rule in my chapter that we don't vote in presidents who have not held an elected position before.

Only possible restriction I can think of is that they cannot be newly initiated. The person has to have been in the fraternity (that specific chapter) for over a year and then some.

Well, we don't have a choice, we have to have one. I was on nominating committee once and the person who appoointed it made a point of putting people from different cliques on it. Hate the player, don't hate the game. :)

That being said, I think slating for a small chapter is ridiculous.

In Gamma Sig, I held one prior office to my presidency - VP of Membership (in charge of both rush and "pledge mom"). I honestly believe that holding an office prior to becoming president helped me do a better job, more so because I saw how the e-board and Nationals operated, but that was just my experience. I'm sure that there are plenty of qualified people who went straight to the top.

Although I agree that there shouldn't be a bunch of rules for who can run, I really think having the president also be an RA is a bad idea. If he wants to be an RA and another officer, that would probably be fine. But can this be resolved in voting? Is there someone else who wants to be president?

But it sounds like you have an issue with guys wanting to live in and that should probably be addressed in conjunction with this election waiver issue. Getting just over half of your membership to live in shouldn't be this hard and the president should be leading the charge on this change in thinking.

I also hate slates. I don't think fraternities do them and women did/do it out of some sort of polite-society issue. We all know it just pushes the politicking into the back room and I'd rather have it be transparent.

I got the impression from the OP that there is not an official chapter house, but rather a house that a bunch of guys in the chapter happen to be living in next year. If there IS an official chapter house, I agree, the president needs to live there. If it's unofficial, I don't think the same rule should apply at all.

Point taken. I continue to work with a large, traditional Greek system bias and it never occurs to me that others function differently. I stand by what I said if it's official housing but if it's just a group of guys living together (with their own responsibility to risk management and insurance), then I stand corrected.

I would think that if it's a house occupied only by members and used to house fraternity functions, they can call it whatever they want, but the fraternity had better purchase a premises liability policy 'cuz whether they want to call it "official" or not, that house is a fraternity house.

For additional clarity.

1) the candidate was a pledge last spring and is a brother for his first semester this fall.
2) we don't lack other qualified or willing candidates.

Thank you all who've contributed thus far.

I was hoping for perhaps some perspective of somebody who had elected a neophyte president. But I seem to be getting the impression that even those who oppose any restrictions on who can run for president still wouldn't actually vote for a neophyte.

You have one of two situations on your hands:

1) There is a chance this guy could actually get elected. If this is the case, that means that he has broad support, likely from his pledge class, and there are a lot of people in your fraternity who are unhappy with the status quo or the brother seen as the "rightful heir". If this is the case, you should turn your attentions to dealing with that type of chapter conflict. Barring the guy from running will just make his supporters feel disenfranchised, and will not mend the break.

2) There is no chance this guy will get elected. If this is the case, the worst thing that happens in letting him run is that he feels really disappointed and/or angry, but he was out of touch to begin with. In this case, I would suggest that a trusted older member have a chat with him and point out that he could be setting himself up for a fall and perhaps suggest other roles that he might consider instead. Again, I wouldn't bar him from running, I'd just make sure he knows that he is taking a big risk.

I was elected chapter president three months after I was initiated (so in my first semester as an initiated member). Yes, I am that awesome.

In any case, there are so many factors at hand, which is why I am personally opposed to restrictions on who can run. Whether or not I would vote for a "neophyte" depends on those various factors, and is not a general statement I would be willing to make. If he is unqualified, and there are other more qualified candidates, then he will probably lose. Or other members will think he is the most qualified and elect him.

Out of curiosity, how?

I personally would only vote for a neophyte if you are in a small chapter that is growing or in need of serious change. Or the guy is gusteau-level awesome;).

My bigger concern is spreading himself too thin. DBB has some good advice here. I think a good and older friend in the chapter might try to get out of him WHY he wants to be president and an RA at the same time. He may just be an 18 year old know it all who thinks he's knows better than everybody else and can handle responsibilities in a super-human way when others can't. Plus, part of college is learning to make choices, and trying to take on 2 big leadership roles just because you don't want to choose between the two is not the right way to go.

Coming in late on this, but I do have something to add. My chapter did elect a new brother as president, but it was only due to special circumstances. He joined in the spring semester of my senior year where we graduated approximately 60% of the active brothers, and more than 80% of the leadership positions. The elected President left school for personal reasons, and the Vice President decided to hold new elections, as that's what our constitution required. The VP actually lost to a new brother who had the support of his pledge class.

I'd say he did some good work, and some very bad. He successfully lobbied for the chapter to disaffiliate with our national organization and return to local status - which had actually been something that the school had forced on the fraternity, and was positively received by the vast majority of alumni. Additionally, the "new guy" president successfully recruited a pledge class that ended up being the core for a revitalization of the fraternity. However, he also managed to alienate the older brothers (by not tell them where events would be held), alienating alumni (this has since been repaired), and using fraternity money to pay for personal items (this was found out after he had left the position). The president ended up leaving school after his presidential year (grades).

In conclusion - if you did elect him, I hope he has an experienced e-board to help guide him. A president should not be sole decider of all things, but needs to have the support of the brothers, or else he's useless.