Suggestion Time

[Rio_Kohitsuji]

Suggestion Time!!

Currently we are working on bylaws and the final editing of the constitution. I've looked at many different const's and bylaws of other organizations. Heck, even last night I made good ole TKE209 let me see his bylaws to see how they're set up!

So, anything you guys can think of that I may have forgotten? Please note, I'm in charge of all the legal mumbo jumbo

PS: Thank you Omega Phi Alpha for the set up of our const' and Kappa Delta for aiding us in our alcohol policy! (Even though you didn't know you aided us! LOL! )

[SuperSister]

I guess I wouldn't really know what you'd forgotten unless I knew what you had done ;o)

[Rio_Kohitsuji]

LOL...oops...

Well...let me put it this way..our alchol policy is 3 pages long..const' is 5, and bylaws (which aren't finished) is over 6 now..when I have some extra time I'll actually add what i have..lol

[decadence]

Ditto not being able to help much with not being able to know what you've already done, but two things which might be worth including are provisions to say that the President (or whomever) has the right of veto over anything (although some people will disagree with that) and also that no contract may be entered into by the chapter for a period greater than one academic year and any contracts which are for a period greater than that will cease to be valid or binding at the expiration of the academic year in which they were signed.
That avoids bad situations where the chapter is bound to bad suppliers etc by contracts the previous officers left the chapter signed into.

[sigtau305]

listing all the Executive Board members and Committee Chairs and listing their duties. also list what G.P.A. requirements is needed to become a Executive Board Member. Example: Our Bylaws states that you need a 2.25 g.p.a. to become a Officer.

[PSK480]

Actually you shouldn't have both constitution and by-laws. The only reason most of us do is that the constitution is a national contistution and the by-laws are the local rules we set up for our chapter. A good idea is just to compile them all into a constitution and then if and when you expand write the by-laws. By-laws in most cases are just repeating alot of stuff in the constituion. Makes it simpler with just one document.

[AchtungBaby80]

Originally posted by PSK480
Actually you shouldn't have both constitution and by-laws. The only reason most of us do is that the constitution is a national contistution and the by-laws are the local rules we set up for our chapter. A good idea is just to compile them all into a constitution and then if and when you expand write the by-laws. By-laws in most cases are just repeating alot of stuff in the constituion. Makes it simpler with just one document.

Well...yes and no. My sorority's Constitution and our chapter by-laws don't overlap that much. However, we do have both a Constitution and a Code of Regulations, which I suppose is kind of like a set of national by-laws and they do cover a lot of the stuff that's in my chapter's by-laws. Having a single document would probably be easier, but there's nothing wrong with having both.

[Tom Earp]

All points are good!

But the question arises if you are a Local trying to expand or just going to stay a local, then you need to keep it short !!

If you are trying to expand from a Local, the total packaging can come down the road! Just a thought tho! But another thing if you are a local trying to associate with a National is another thing too!!

You do in anyway need to have a Statement of what your trying to do, Officers, Pledgeing rules, Members resposibilities on payment, jop description, etc!!

Dont try to make it to hard going in!

[Betarulz!]

Originally posted by decadence
including are provisions to say that the President (or whomever) has the right of veto over anything (although some people will disagree with that)

I'm going to have to majorly disagree with this. I mean majorly.

NO ONE should have any special privilages that would allow them to exert such a large amount of power over the group. If the chapter as a whole reaches an agreement, to which a majority of the chapter (whether 50% or 2/3 or whatever) has voted in the affirmative for, then there is no reason whatsoever that could ever be created where the President should have to veto a chapter decision. There is absolutely no reason to include such a provision. Such powers just totally circumvents the process of having a chapter meeting.

I think that an opposite statement should be made in your constitution: one saying that all initiated members are equal, and that only as a matter of social economy and efficiency are there chapter officers, and these positions are open to all initiated members who have the desire to take on the challenges of them.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by PSK480
Actually you shouldn't have both constitution and by-laws. The only reason most of us do is that the constitution is a national contistution and the by-laws are the local rules we set up for our chapter.

I'm going to disagree -- respectfully, I hope.

Constitutions and by-laws (which may have another name -- statutes, regulations, etc.) serve different purposes, and many if not most national organizations have both.

A constitutution is supposed to be the "basic law" of the group. It sets forth the basic governing principles of the group: name, purpose, classes of and requirements for membership, basics of chapter structure, officers, governing structure, perhaps insignia, requirement of use of the official ritual and how the ritual can be revised, and the like. A good constitution is not too detailed.

That is because the details are left for the by-laws, which provide specifics on a variety of things. By-laws fill in blanks left by the constitution and may address additional subjects as well. (This is where an alcohol policy would go, for example).

By-laws may be amended by a simple majority, while amending the constitution requires a super-majority (usually 2/3 or 3/4) and may require succesive votes for the national governing body, ratification by chapters, or the like.

Hope this helps a little.

[texas*princess]

Originally posted by Betarulz!
I'm going to have to majorly disagree with this. I mean majorly.

NO ONE should have any special privilages that would allow them to exert such a large amount of power over the group. If the chapter as a whole reaches an agreement, to which a majority of the chapter (whether 50% or 2/3 or whatever) has voted in the affirmative for, then there is no reason whatsoever that could ever be created where the President should have to veto a chapter decision. There is absolutely no reason to include such a provision. Such powers just totally circumvents the process of having a chapter meeting.

I think that an opposite statement should be made in your constitution: one saying that all initiated members are equal, and that only as a matter of social economy and efficiency are there chapter officers, and these positions are open to all initiated members who have the desire to take on the challenges of them.

Definately agree with Betarulz! That kind of special privilage would just cause MAJOR problems down the line.

Plus, what's the use of voting on something if the President might just veto it anyway?

The chapter should be allowed to make decisions for the good of the chapter.. not just one person.

[decadence]

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.

[Kristin AGD]

I don't agree with a single person having the power to veto. I understand the reasoning. But having an executive council should be sufficient. The executive council members could have a vote, and as a whole veto a decision. But to put that responsibility on one person seems to be a little harsh, to the president and the members. But that is just my opinion.

[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.

[texas*princess]

excellent post MysticCat!