[Author's note: The SAE forum here is not visited anywhere near as regularly as is this forum and to the extent SAE's national government may inadvertently set a precedent for other GLOs to follow, I feel it is relevant to post here.]
My Brothers in Sigma Alpha Epsilon:
The proposed amendments to the Fraternity Laws to be considered at the Convention next weekend are published in the Phi Alpha, which is available on the national website (link provided at the bottom of this post). There are a total of 35 proposed amendments, of which five pertain to whether or not the Supreme Council may amend or repeal any portion of the Fraternity Laws or of the Ritual in the time between regular sessions of the Convention. Those are as follows:
Proposal #6: says the Supreme Council MAY do so, but subject to ratification by a majority vote at the next Convention.
Proposal #7: says the Supreme Council may NOT do so, that this can only be done by the Convention itself.
Proposal #13: says that the Supreme Council may NOT do so and specifically prohibits the ESA, the ESR, and the Supreme Council from doing otherwise.
Proposal #33: says the Supreme Council MAY act with the Convention's authority "in all capacities."
Proposal #34: intends that the Supreme Council may NOT change the Fraternity Laws or the Ritual in the interval between sessions.
Also related --
Proposal #8: says only the Convention, and not the Supreme Council, may make rules governing appeals.
Proposal #12: would allow absentee ballots to be cast by those who are otherwise entitled to vote at a Convention, but who are not able to personally attend.
Besides the above, Proposal #35 would modify the Initiation Ritual. Because the ceremony is secret, the details of this proposal have not been published, but will instead be discussed at the Convention itself. I have no idea what specifically is being proposed.
I am the principal author of Proposal #13, though the language of both the proposed amendment itself and its statement of rationale were revised through a peer review process. The intent is nevertheless the same. Why this subject is so critically important may be illustrated by a single example.
Last year after the TGE was announced, there were (and are) many people who question whether or not the Supreme Council possessed the authority necessary to implement this program. A conference call was held to discuss the matter, participated in by Deran Abernathy (Associate Executive Director of the Fraternity), our Regional Director, our then-current Province Archon, another Chapter Advisor, and myself. During this phone call, I asked Deran Abernathy, as a representative of the national office, this hypothetical question: "suppose at the next Convention the brothers determine that they no longer want the TGE and vote to repeal the program and reverse all of the changes that were made to the Fraternity Laws and to the Ritual; what would happen then?" In response to this, Deran stated, quite simply, that in such a case the Supreme Council could immediately "re-up" the program the moment that very Convention adjourned.
Consider what this means. The Supreme Council believes -- and has acted accordingly -- as though they possess the full power and authority of the Fraternity Convention during the two-year window between regular sessions. They therefore believe that they can disregard a lawful order of the Convention and act entirely contrary to what the Convention decided, because they believe that they themselves *are* the Convention. In other words, to the Supreme Council, it would be as though the Convention simply 'changed its mind' and decided to go in entirely the opposite direction.
Bottom line: if we allow this to continue, then the ONLY vote conducted at the actual regular session of the Convention that the Supreme Council will inherently respect is the vote that elects each of them to national office. In EACH and EVERY other case, they can simply decide among themselves to disregard any lawful order of the Convention with which they disagree. The undergraduates will have permanently lost their right to have any say in the Fraternity's destiny. The Supreme Council believes that the undergraduates are not to be trusted and that you all should sit down and be quiet while the 'grown ups' decide everything. In point of fact, there is NO LIMIT on how far the Supreme Council can go without your consent if their current interpretation of their authority is allowed to stand.
You must vote according to your conscience and how you believe YOUR Fraternity ought to be governed. For what it is worth, it is my earnest recommendation that you vote this way:
YES: Proposal #7, 13, and 34; also #8 and 12.
NO: Proposal #6 and 33.
http://data.sae.net/forms/PhiAlpha.pdf
Linear Mode
