Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldest_Pledge
I must disagree with you here. You can do anything you want if you apply yourself.
The fact that you are not directly involved with the situation coupled with your desire to see other issues handled in a more appropriate manner make you a highly qualified individual to share an objective report on the entire issue.
For what I have been ablet o read in the lbogs and here is that some brothers who did not live in the chapter house (reason not given) opted to rent a place to live. The fact that it near the chapter house and owned by a Beta Alum should have nothing to do with this. Then some activities took place at this "annex" that probably should not have.
Now, what is still confusing is the early converstation with the Advisors on this "annex." Since the Chapter and GF/AO have not published the minutes of the meetings, we do not know if they discussed this as a way to get around the dry rules or if they group that did get the "annex" announced they would be living there because they can not get a room in the chapter house.
If the chapter did discuss in official meetings ways to get around the dry house then it is possible that this reorganization is OK.
|
Hi Oldest Pledge,
When I said I cannot give you the other side of the story, I mean I am not privy to all the details and facts. I never will be- nor will anyone else outside of this situation I am sure.
But in my last post I really and truly gave you my sincere take and position. I am not sure what else I can say.
I would be shocked if there were official chapter meetings and meeting minutes detailing plans to get annex houses to host social events and activities that could not happen in the house. That does not make sense. It sounds like a legal argument to me- something a defense attorney might say.
I get the feeling many are looking at this from a legal standpoint. That is how the suspended members evidently feel. "The keg was empty" might work in a court of law, but not in a brotherhood.
We are not strangers asking strangers to make rulings on fact. This is all about a group of brothers and their advisors who knew each other well and could make reasonable judgements that to a certain extent other chapters have to trust if they wish to also be allowed to self-govern.
I don't know the Miami chapter like its alumni and active brothers do. And GF has to take reports from any chapter about RM issues seriously. If a chapter and its advisors cannot manage itself internally, what is GF to do?
How can people removed from the situation really get into the heads of those who were involved and make a fair decision- especially when both sides of this issue look at the facts and come up with vastly different ideas of what a fair decision is? GF has a list of policies there for a reason. If violations are reported, what else can they do but act? If they were to give Miami a pass here, would they not have to give everyone else a pass?
No system is perfect. And the imperfection in a fraternal order is that when a chapter cannot manage itself and members or alumni feel compelled to report incidents to nationals because they feel a critical boundary has been crossed, then the reality is that a uniform approach of action has to be taken. Truth be told, some might even call that an imperfection- but a practical reality.
The alternative is to pay far more dues to GF and then have them directly manage and oversee every chapter.
The men who were most close to this situation were unable to manage it themselves. And so as I see it, GF had to go in and look at the facts on the face and make a decision based solely on that. And the facts indicate, by the words of the suspended members themselves, that the presence and use of the annex houses was the key to this entire mess.
And from there, what else can you do but provide equal punishment against all who live in those houses? It may not be fair, but then again- what more could GF do to make it fairer? Really and truly, what more?