|
I can certainly see where you're coming from, perhaps it'll help if I try to explain why I suggested such an item. I agree it is a potentially risky item to have in a constitution.
Being a President (or equivalent title) is one of the highest honours a fraternity or sorority can bestow upon a member. The duties will vary from GLO to GLO but at chapter level the President will have overall executive authority for the group locally. They will be responsible for ensuring the welfare and dignity of the chapter. Some fraternities or sororities specify that as a Presidential duty, in others the spirit of it is inferred via the role involving upholding the values of the founders. To an extent all members are responsible for that but the President usually has the final duty to oversee it. The veto option helps to serve as a system of checks and balances. It would in practice be used extremely sparingly. It is hard to imagine anyone would try to exercise it on a whim as that would risk upsetting the rest of the chapter and affect ties the members had. No-one wants to be overruled all the time and it'd undermine people.
For an extreme example of why it'd be useful consider this:
Imagine you're Pres. of a GLO and you find that a member who would have made an excellent brother/sister was excluded purely because of discriminatory criteria (race, sexuality, yadda yadda). To maintain the welfare and dignity of the chapter of uphold the values of the founders, true gentleman etc you might well want to overrule such decisions. Obviously that was a recuitment example which would not occur depending on how recruitment must be conducted for some GLOs but there would well be other situations it could be "necessary" in.
I don't agree that it would affect democracy as it's not devolving or giving away power to any external person or group but I do see how it could be abused which is why the President would need to be a person who would uphold the values of the group. I remember another thread were someone was asking about how they could ensure future exec. committees of the chapter did not alter the constitution and it was suggested it was egotistical to do so since each committee was in a way a custodian of the group and groups needed to evolve - not be bound like that. At the same time there's the argument though, ultimately someone has to take responsibility and even if you agree with the sentiment espoused somewhere in the Macolm X film 'no one person should have that much power' then checks and balances still need to be there.
|