[MysticCat]

I've never heard of an instance where a president of a chapter has veto power over chapter decisions. Along with Betarulz and Texas*Princess, I think it is a very bad idea that invites all kinds of trouble. (Can you imagine the conflict that would ensue if a chapter, for whatever reason, voted not to extend a bid to or initiate a person, but the president had the ability to overrule that decision? That's one new member who is going to feel very unwelcome.)

But, if it is going to be done and is going to be viewed as a checks-and-balances issue, then there must be an additional check: the chapter's ability to override the veto. In contexts (such as government) where a chief executive officer has veto power, the chief legislative authority has the ability to override the veto by a specified super-majority vote.

Bear in mind a crucial difference here. In government, where the veto power is usually found, the chief executive officer -- president or governor -- is not part of the legislature whose actions he or she is vetoing. Moreover, he or she is elected seperately from the members of the legislative body. That is why it operates as a check-and-balance -- one branch of government's power is checked and balanced by another's. In groups such as GLOs, by contrast, the president (ie, the presiding officer) is a member of the body whose actions he or she would veto; in fact, he or she was elected by that body and presumably presided over the debate and vote involved.

As for protecting and upholding the values of the group, those values should be stated and reflected in the constitution, so that the chapter cannot act contrary to them. To use the example provided, the constitution could (should!) prohibit new member selection based on discriminatory criteria. If a chapter acts contrary to that constitutional provision, then it has taken an unauthorized (ie, unconstitutional) action, which should be addressed by a higher (regional or national) authority within the GLO.