Vote of No Confidence

EM1843 · #1 02-05-2007, 12:30 PM

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 · #2 02-05-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 02-05-2007, 01:10 PM

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 · #4 02-05-2007, 03:53 PM

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 · #5 02-05-2007, 04:43 PM

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 · #6 02-06-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote:

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 · #7 02-06-2007, 12:55 PM

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.

LXA grits · #8 08-20-2008, 06:21 PM

I would definitely go the route of holding him to his oath of office. If he breaks that oath, then he is to be held accountable for those actions. That is assuming all officers have taken that oath. ...Which assumes all chapters are actually performing the officer installations ceremony. Oh too many chapters don't see the importance of such a ritual. Essentially, it equates to the initiation ritual in this way:

In the Initiation ritual, we present new brothers to commit to certain promises. If they mess up as brothers, they are held accountable.

In the Officer Installation ceremony, we present nominated/newly-elected officers to commit to certain promises. If they mess up as officers, they are held accountable.

Would chapters simply NOT DO an initiation ritual for new members? For the most part, "No." So, why do so many chapters simply NOT DO an officer installation ceremony? Is it because it's viewed as that much less important? One of my goals for the next few years is to memorize this ceremony to emphasize its importance.

Anyway, that's the route I'd go, if an officer wasn't pulling his weight. And also, continuously poke him with the Standards for Chapter Excellence reviews...those are great for emphasizing "ever-increasing usefulness." My two cents.

Yours in Z A X ,

Tom Earp · #9 08-21-2008, 01:07 PM

LXAGrits, should this not be left up to the Exec. of the chapter?

Would it not be better to keep in house than world wide without getting IHQ involved?

A Brother is voted in by the members and should be able to be voted out the same way.

Yes, Officers are expected to do better and the leaders of the Zeta. 1 or two can be very adverse to any Zeta.

LXA grits · #10 08-22-2008, 05:48 AM

Tom, I agree this type of situation should be taken care of by an individual chapter. I feel that if there is a small problem, then all individuals have the right to confront a person about their work as an officer. If that doesn't work, and someone deems it necessary to give them (as this forum discusses) a "vote of no confidence", then that probably needs to be presented to the Executive Committee. I see the Standards of Chapter Excellence meetings as more of a proactive way of giving the officers a heads-up about what kind of improvements they could be making on their already sufficient job (most of the time). I never said anything about getting IHQ involved!

Now, if someone is having a problem with implementing a new program or with some other chapter operations type situation, then I think it's very appropriate to ask your ELC for advice...or maybe even some brothers from other chapters (as they might have had a similar experience). I personally believe the ELC will have a more trustworthy and accurate answer, but still hearing the thoughts from brothers in this online community can be beneficial.

Yours in Z A X ,

Tom Earp · #11 08-22-2008, 01:55 PM

Chris, thank you but I wonder how many times Brothers are in contact with other Zetas?

I wish it were more to say the least as we are not one Zeta alone but many others.

Maybe there needs to be a stronger push for more interaction beyond Regionals and G As. We do have the ability here to work with other Brothers and become closer.

To me if and only if the problem cannot be handled in house then the ELC needs to be contacted.