Convention ammendments

[Lamp Guard]

The constitutional ammendments have been out for a while. What do you guys think of them?

Lamp Guard

[Tex1899]

Haven't received them yet. What are they? I've heard something about a portion of the Grand Council being appointed rather than elected.

On paper the GC candidates have some great skills. Whether or not they can be effective is a different story. Because of the skills they bring to the table I have a pretty good idea of who I'll vote for on two of them.

[Rock Knobbster]

I don't think I like the first amendment, too much legaleese. We have to do something about our national volunteer corps and I agree with a two-tiered system, similar to the old District Governors, but with Regional volunteers to help coordinate their efforts.

I am opposed to the amendment on changing the Grand Council. While I appreciate the committee trying to come up with creative ways to improve our governance, I don't think this is right for us. I don't like the idea of a small group of GC members appointing the rest of the members. I also don't like the one term limit for President.

If the Grand Council feels they are lacking some expertise on the council, they should find those brothers they want on the council and get them to go through the process to be elected. If the elected members need some expertise, this could be accomplished by an advisory council, like we have with our legal counsel. The bottom line for me: I will never support an amendment that diminishes the authority of the convention assembled. Let the delegates choose who they want to represent them.

See you all in Austin!

[ahdeltasig]

Another Convention down, and more good debate on the floor.

The Grand Council appointment vs. election situation and the one term vs. two for the national president are both in limbo. To be honest I was against both of these because of exactly what Rock Knobbster said, the appointments take away the power of Convention Assembled, and I don't know that we want to go down that road. In addition, the one term vs. two thing should be up to the person in the presidential position whether they feel they can have a second term. If they can't, they'll tell us. If they can, then they should have that right. IMHO, Chris Northern saying he was almost burnt out did nothing to change my mind on this. He doesn't want to have a second term, and that's his choice - as it should be. The Constitution is not a place to put a restriction of one term on the president.

In that same vain, the Convention passed an amendment stating that the executive director of the fraternity must be a member. I spoke against this (not very eloquently by the way) because of a few reasons that I've listed below. While I respect the decision of the Convention Assembled, I have problems with this amendment.

1. There are precedents in other fraternity and sorority organizations where non-members are the Executive Directors and are doing fabulous work. (A good example is Triangle Fraternity, where our own Paul Lawson, an initiate of the Alpha Chi Chapter at Stetson, is their Executive Director.)

2. While we would hope that the most qualified candidate to run the day-to-day operations of the Fraternity would be a Delta Sig (by the way, I DEFINITELY HOPE THAT A DELTA SIG IS THE MOST QUALIFIED), it might not always be that way. Now, we will never have the opportunity to even see the types of other association executives that we could potentially bring in new ideas on how to manage the national organization and lead us to new heights.

3. We have never been an exclusive fraternity. When we were founded, we were founded on the principles of inclusivity. I feel that the amendment that was passed is too exclusive, limiting our ability to say that we're running the fraternity the way the founders wanted us to on a day to day basis.

4. Right now at the Headquarters, we have many non-members running VERY important parts of the operations. George Miller is running the entire Chapter Services program. Carol Arenstein is overseeing the Fraternity's finances. Judy Hamilton just planned an outstanding Convention, and Kara Baker is in charge of all of the communications of the Fraternity. Seems to me that we're doing just fine with them in these positions. Having non-members around is good, because they bring in fresh ideas that we as organization might not think of ourselves.

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox. I will live with the delegates' decision. They heard my rambling attempt at making a point, and heard Rock Knobbster's rebuttal, and they felt he was right. Good debate on issues is always a good thing if you ask me. I hope Rock Knobbster is right for the sake of the Fraternity.

Anyway, after all of that, I had a great time at Convention, and hope everyone else did too. Let's make Phoenix in 2007 the biggest Convention ever! If you attended, go back to your chapters and talk it up! That's the only way people will get excited! Later, and I remain,

YITBOS

[Rock Knobbster]

Just when I thought I wouldn't have to speak on my amendment, you had to get up! LOL. Thanks for sharing your point of view. The fact we can agree to disagree is great and one major reason we're all there is to engage in debate face-to-face. As you would expect, I'm glad it passed.

My bigger fear was NOT another fraternity man, but rather ANY qualified PERSON coming forward next time. We have the legal right of exclusion, and this is one time I think we need to exercise it. I have no issue with the other positions and certainly not with George--who does a great job, but I wouldn't want him for ED.

As for the other amendments, I wish we had just pushed through the second undergrad on the GC and cleaned it up later. The UAC is covered in the bylaws, so the GC could have dealt with that issue. I think we worry about the staggering and continuity too much. Get what you can, while you can. At least we have two years to work it all out.

The issue of the alumni appointments is dead. I wish we had killed it rather than tabled, but I still don't think this will ever pass--at least not while Mickey from Eta has breath in him! Of course, with Chris stepping aside, there is an opening for the remaining two years of his term, so they will be appointing again soon anyway.

Looking at the BOD of my billion $ company, we don't have a lawyer or CPA or insurance person. We have CEOs and other high level business executives, but not the specialists. Those are on staff or hired out. If the GC needs specific help, they should create an advisory board of brothers to help them.

Great to see so many brothers and engage in some great debate. Let's keep the debate going here between now and Phoenix.

[Tex1899]

It's my understanding that when Sigma Chi has a local/colony petitioning for a charter, the chapters (undergraduate chapters, nto sure about alumni chapters) vote on the petition. And they vote by mail.

For the second undergraduate position, I like the idea of the two roles being staggered - have the second member elected in non-Convention years. How do we do this? Simple. Put it up to a vote. Each chapter in good standing gets the number of votes they'd get at Convention, each chapter advisor gets a vote, each alumni chapter (in good standing) gets a vote (or two if they're eligible), and same with the alumni association. The alumni chapter's vote would come from the ACB. All votes must be postmarked by a specified date. Pretty simple if you ask me. A second undergraduate is thus ELECTED and the terms are STAGGERED. I apologize if I've misspelled staggered...

The tricky part will be determining who the candidates are. Will they come from the UAC or will any undergraduate meeting the requirements be able to toss their name into the hat? You'll end up voting on skills/resume, which is bad, but I think it would be a pretty fair compromise. You'll still get some guys who campaign.

[Tex1899]

I understand the need for certain skill sets on the Grand Council. I don't think many at Convention would have argued this point. The biggest problem is wanting to appoint them.

I pledged in Spring '99. I've heard rumors about some things that have gone on in our Fraternity over the years. Regarding the appointing of GC members, a former GC member asked me, "so what you're saying is you don't trust the Brothers you elect to the Grand Council?" After what I've heard has happened in the past, my answer is yes. I'd trust them with my life, but they're like our elected politicians. For the most part they're good individuals, but their view of where the Fraternity should go and mine are probably not exactly the same. And I think some get elected with a specific agenda in mind.

If certain skill sets are needed, go out and recruit those Brothers to run for election to the GC. Take a note from the Recruitment Playbook. Just like Mike Bellotti, Mike Shannahan (and/or his GM), and Joe Tiller recruit for specific positions, so should we. Perhaps the GC should create a committee to evaluate certain needs for the GC and then to recruit individuals to run for positions to ensure that those skill sets are on the Council.

Taking the vote away from the Convention is a bad idea.

[ahdeltasig]

Agreed to all Tex1899 said. He said it well.

Staggered years are the key to the whole thing. Why just put another undergrad on the GC? One can handle those responsibilities. The reason for the second is so that when staggered, there would always be an experienced undergrad on the council. That is what's important here, not just having another undergrad on the council for the heck of it.

Also, well said on the appointments of the GC members. They need to be elected by the Convention, and not appointed by the current GC members. Going out and recruiting guys to run is one way to do it actively, but my only problem with that is that you would more than likely get the same results as if they appointed them - the people they want in the positions getting elected anyway. My thought is that the GC should communicate with all alumni the needs they have on the council, and encourage ALL QUALIFIED BROTHERS to answer the call and run for the open positions. If they still get no response, then they will have to make due with who is elected. That's just the way the chips fall.

All in all, well said Tex1899. Later guys, and YITBOS