Vote of No Confidence

[PiLambda1]

Is there anything in our Constitution or Stat. Code that allows for a Vote of
No Confidence on a officer in the High Zeta?

If not, how does a non-officer go about questioning an officer?


Just Curious...


In ZAX,
Brandon

[PiLambda1]

Aside from running that is...

[boz130]

I believe this might help you out...I took out IV-31a/b because they don't apply to your query.

Code IV-31. Powers and Duties of the Executive Committee. The
Executive Committee shall act for the Active Chapter/Colony in all
matters not requiring the vote of the entire membership and not
otherwise provided for in the Laws of the Fraternity or the Bylaws of
the Chapter/Colony. It shall have the following specific powers and
duties:

c. Declaring a vacancy in the High Zeta or other elective and
appointive offices caused by permanent disability, resignation, or
removal from office, and filling such vacancy, other than High
Alpha, by appointment or special election when necessary,
granting the right of any member to request a majority vote of the
Chapter/Colony on the dismissal, the new appointment, or both.
Code IV-7 shall apply in the case of replacing the High Alpha.

d. Authority to impose any penalty in a private informal hearing for
cause, granting the right of any active, associate, or alumnus
member disciplined to demand a formal disciplinary hearing
before the Chapter/Colony. The accused shall be entitled to be
present and heard at both the informal disciplinary hearing as
provided in Code X-3 and the formal disciplinary hearing as
provided in Code X-11. If no hearing is demanded, the finding
and sentence of the Executive Committee shall be deemed as
final, official, and binding. A full record of the proceedings shall
be kept, which must show briefly the charges, the evidence, and
the punishment imposed.

[GammaZeta]

You know, I really think you need to really be sure of what you're doing before a vote of no confidence or any type of public display against other members of the chapter.

Many, many times a chapter, big or small, will splinter and divide into groups or cliques. One group against another. A power struggle most times. I've seen it tear apart a chapter before.

I've been guilty of it, so have most of my other chapter brothers at one point. Thinking back, I should have let a little more slide before questioning our officers, because it wasn't until I was actually an officer that I understood where they were coming from.

Just remember, a vote of no confidence will result in problems, no matter what. It will automatically make the chapter chose sides, make each side defensive.

If it's something major, then please go forward with it, you have an obligation to. But please make sure it's something major and that inaction will significantly impact the chapter in a negative way.

[PiLambda1]

Ohh man - I was just watching Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and
the queen in the movie moves for a vote of no confidence. I just got
to thinking if there was something like that in the fraternity.

Kinda dorky, I know...It just got me wondering. No basis behind it
in my chapter at all...




In ZAX,
Brandon

[john1082]

Read that section carefully. Code IV-31(c) says:

c. Declaring a vacancy in the High Zeta or other elective and
appointive offices caused by permanent disability, resignation, or
removal from office, and filling such vacancy,

If the officer is not permanently disabled, doesn't resign, or isn't otherwise removed (via academic discipline or financial discipline) then I don't think that the Ex-Comm can simoply fire him.

You could subject him to discipline for failing to discharge his duties as a violation of his oath of office and then if convicted then make the punishment removal from office . . .

You would get the same reult but via a more convoluted method. This may be something that we want to streamline.

[DeltaPhizeta332]

Our Standards for Chapter Excellence calls in brothers and officers early to let them know their expectations as well as calls in brothers throughout the semester to grade them on their status. If the executive board feels an officer isnt up to par, they can suggest the Standards board call him in, give him a rating, and if it is poor, give him a few weeks to show some progress or his office will be vacated.

[john1082]

I know that chapters do handle underperforming officers in this way, and I know that it can work, but perhaops we need a simpler way to do it - the procedure isn't set forth clearly in our Stat Code and it may be something that we need to look at as we do some revisions.

Our documents ought to reflect how we do business and they need to be easy to understand and apply. It shouldn't take the Grand High Pi, a Federal Judge, and three other lawyers having a seance to figure out what the documents say, how they are to be applied, and how that compares to reality.

[EM1843]

I agree totally. I think the entirety of the Constitution and Statutory Code should be scrapped and rewritten. They should at least be clear enough so that a lawyer can understand and apply them, but they are not.

[PiLambda1]

Originally Posted by EM1843

I agree totally. I think the entirety of the Constitution and Statutory Code should be scrapped and rewritten. They should at least be clear enough so that a lawyer can understand and apply them, but they are not.

Lynn's a lawyer, and he knows them pretty well!

That would be such a huge undertaking, it wouldn't be worth it.
What needs to happen is that a committee needs to be formed by the
GHZ made up of alumni, undergrads, and anyone else to go through
and draw up suggestions for each article/section/subsection.

But, realistically, we'd never get a concensus on anything, and by
the time it was done the undergrads on the committee would be grads.


In ZAX,
Brandon

[EM1843]

I know that Lynn is a lawyer, but he can't be available everytime a chapter has questions. Our Pi is a lawyer and even he had difficulty following the C&SC. I believe it could be reasonably rewritten in about a year. If at the next GA a resloution is passed calling for a new C&SC to be written, that would at least get the ball rolling. Every two years we put another band-aid on, it's about time that we go in for some major surgery.

[Tom Earp]

Actually, I think everyone is missing one point.

It is called the Roberts Rules of Order. Our meetings while are supposed to have certain regulations, it is still the rule of the land no matter what business or organization one is in. Now, is it followed?

There should be in Roberts an area that would explain the removal of an Officer.

But as each one of our Zetas is a closer knit group, tread lightly unless there is a general agreement of oppinion. Do not tear the Zeta apart.

A person will show himself and be his own downfall.

[EM1843]

I don't believe Roberts would provide for the removal of an officer. According to their FAQs:

Question 7:
What is a vote of no confidence?

Answer:
The term "vote of no confidence" is not used or defined anywhere in RONR, and there is no mention of any motion for such a vote. However, this does not mean that an assembly cannot adopt a motion, if it wishes, expressing either its confidence or lack of confidence in any of its officers or subordinate boards or committees. Any such motion would simply be a main motion, and would have no effect other than to express the assembly's views concerning the matter. A vote of "no confidence" does not - as it would in the British Parliament - remove an officer from office.

Removal of an officers should be provided for in the C&SC or in chapter by-laws. Considering that removal of an officer is a touchy and sometimes difficult process I wouldn't leave it to the individual chapters.

Code IV-31(c) seems to provide the power to remove an officer to the Exec. committee, but it doesn't not provide standards or procedure for removal. Once again, this is why the C&SC should be completely revised.

[john1082]

Originally Posted by EM1843

I agree totally. I think the entirety of the Constitution and Statutory Code should be scrapped and rewritten. They should at least be clear enough so that a lawyer can understand and apply them, but they are not.

Funny you should mention this . . .

There is a standing committee on the C&SC. There are many things that ought to be looked at: Basic organization of the document itself, discipline of the member, chapter discipline, incorporating all the resolutions since 1909, etc. Removal of an officer may be something that needs to be added.

There is a precedent for starting out fresh as Phi Delta Theta rewrote theirs in 1972, and Sigma Alpha Epsilon in 2005.

I agree that we likely could not do a complete re-write in one sitting but if we bite off little pieces and have a plan we could likely get the bulk of the work done in 8 years or so. That may seem like an eternity to some, but it is probably a realistic estimate.

BTW, the SAE documents look real good: Easy to understand and apply

[EM1843]

If State Constitutions can be rewritten, I would certainly think that it could be done with a Fraternity Constitution.

IMHO the Constitution should spell out the rights and responsibilities of each member and chapter, and the SC should lay out the procedures to enforce each of the above.