|
These kinds of restrictions are always interesting. Basically, you have past bodies which think it's in the organization's best interest to substitute their judgment for the judgment of all future membership sets.
I can definitely see a strong argument for the second, as you usually want folks in that position who have experience; but I can also think of some great arguments against it. I'm my chapter's adviser, so I've worked with quite a few e-boards. Such a rule, limiting the presidency to the e-board isn't always the best idea. What if none of the people on your e-board are presidential material?
If you have some old bylaw which is preventing your group from doing what you think it should be doing, first try to find out what the reason for putting that bylaw in place is.
My philosophy about these sort of restriction is if you think your brothers are smart enough to take into consideration the fact that candidate A has exec experience and candidate B does not or whether they'd rather their President live in the house or be an RA , then there's no reason for the bylaw.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|
Threaded Mode
