Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
I know it doesn't need to be a bylaw amendment. But I think it should be. And this is no offense (or reference) to you personally, but I am getting a little annoyed with people telling (the collective) me what should and should not be in the bylaws. It unnecessarily stifles discussion among students and alumni who need to discuss these things and is starting to feel like a use of a particular person's position that oversteps from teaching into dictating. Let the reference committees do their jobs.
And I think we're also both aware that even bylaws amendments can lack teeth. Remember the National History and Archives Committee? Yeah, I barely do. And there is a whole litany of things regarding alumni relations which are being ignored altogether.
I am not quite at the point where I am pissed off, but I am learning about Alpha Phi Omega more and more each day, when to use legislation as a solution, and when to attempt to influence policy.
I'm the Bizarro JayBee.
|
Though what I'm about to say isn't really about this thread, it is in response to this post. I am probably one of the more vocal people about what should and should not be in the bylaws.
First, I'll state that the Convention can put anything into the bylaws it wants. If something is illegal or in violation of the Articles of Incorporation, it's void.
Second, the point of my repeated messages regarding what should and should not be in the bylaws isn't an issue of POLICY PREFERENCE, rather, it's a statement of "how best is this policy adopted?" Some things SHOULD be in the bylaws, some things can be handled by policy or resolution, some by convention, and some by the Board. Some can even by done simply by action at the National Office.
All I want us to do (as an organization) is to get to a point where we quit trying to manage the Fraternity through the bylaws, which generally is for structure and the things so vital to the organization (that is, the things it considers important) that they aren't to be often changed. If you feel that a restriction on who can wear letters (and what you're saying is that it is a RIGHT of membership), then perhaps that is something for the bylaws. HOW Letters can be worn, or the implementation of that policy, really is NOT a bylaws issue, but a policy one (which the convention could adopt as well.)
I'm not trying to stifle any conversation about any proposed policy change (and that includes amendments to the bylaws.) What I AM trying to do, however, is get people to have that conversation in the most appropriate context - discussing an amendment to the bylaws is different than discussing a proposed policy, becuase the PROCESS is different. That's all I'm trying to do. I want people to talk about these things - it helps refine bad ideas into good ones, or good ones into better ones, or even bad ones into nonexistent ones. I just want them to talk about them in the context of the most appropriate venue for them.
I do not make apologies for trying to have these discussions in a way that (a) results in the most efficient and effective use of the convention's time and (b) yields the best possible result for the advancement of the Fraternity.
Mark
Threaded Mode
