|
Just when I thought I wouldn't have to speak on my amendment, you had to get up! LOL. Thanks for sharing your point of view. The fact we can agree to disagree is great and one major reason we're all there is to engage in debate face-to-face. As you would expect, I'm glad it passed.
My bigger fear was NOT another fraternity man, but rather ANY qualified PERSON coming forward next time. We have the legal right of exclusion, and this is one time I think we need to exercise it. I have no issue with the other positions and certainly not with George--who does a great job, but I wouldn't want him for ED.
As for the other amendments, I wish we had just pushed through the second undergrad on the GC and cleaned it up later. The UAC is covered in the bylaws, so the GC could have dealt with that issue. I think we worry about the staggering and continuity too much. Get what you can, while you can. At least we have two years to work it all out.
The issue of the alumni appointments is dead. I wish we had killed it rather than tabled, but I still don't think this will ever pass--at least not while Mickey from Eta has breath in him! Of course, with Chris stepping aside, there is an opening for the remaining two years of his term, so they will be appointing again soon anyway.
Looking at the BOD of my billion $ company, we don't have a lawyer or CPA or insurance person. We have CEOs and other high level business executives, but not the specialists. Those are on staff or hired out. If the GC needs specific help, they should create an advisory board of brothers to help them.
Great to see so many brothers and engage in some great debate. Let's keep the debate going here between now and Phoenix.
|