Letters on the Butt.

[mastratton]

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

[naraht]

Originally Posted by mastratton

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.

Didn't one of the last two or three conventions finish with actual business sometime in the morning of the 30th? I remember being surprised when I found out that it had finished as early as it did. Is going back to a three day convention a reasonable target?

BTW, the length of the conventions is as follows...
By mail: 1926 and 1928 (not sure of the length of the second part of 1928)
Two days: 1932, 1934, 1938, 1940 & 1946
Three days: 1936 (Our tenth anniversary celebration), and 1950-1986
Four days: 1988-Present.

[mastratton]

Originally Posted by naraht

Didn't one of the last two or three conventions finish with actual business sometime in the morning of the 30th? I remember being surprised when I found out that it had finished as early as it did. Is going back to a three day convention a reasonable target?

BTW, the length of the conventions is as follows...
By mail: 1926 and 1928 (not sure of the length of the second part of 1928)
Two days: 1932, 1934, 1938, 1940 & 1946
Three days: 1936 (Our tenth anniversary celebration), and 1950-1986
Four days: 1988-Present.

Hmmm. Good question, Randy. I don't know that anyone has really talked about going back to 3 days.

The last Convention finished fairly early on the 30th (I BELIEVE it was late morning, or maybe around noon - I don't quite remember.) Part of that was driven by the fact that there was less legislation, but what there was, generally, was more substantive. And, reference committees (because of a lighter work load) were better able to devote time to really getting into proposals. It's all a balancing act, really.

So, I don't know if we'd look at going back to 3 day conventions or not. But, however long the convention is, shouldn't be dominated so much by legislation that voting delegates can't participate in other convention activities. We should not submit fewer pieces for the sake of getting out earlier, I don't think - rather, we should submit only those things that really require the time of the convention. That might mean a longer session one time, and a shorter one the next, or whatever. That's only opinion on my part, however.

Mark

[APhiQuetieACE]

Originally Posted by mastratton

But, however long the convention is, shouldn't be dominated so much by legislation that voting delegates can't participate in other convention activities. We should not submit fewer pieces for the sake of getting out earlier, I don't think - rather, we should submit only those things that really require the time of the convention. That might mean a longer session one time, and a shorter one the next, or whatever. That's only opinion on my part, however.

Mark

I beg to differ. Delegates are there to do the business of the fraternity. Participating in other activities is a bonus. This is just my opinion as a former delegate.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by APhiQuetieACE

I beg to differ. Delegates are there to do the business of the fraternity. Participating in other activities is a bonus. This is just my opinion as a former delegate.

Well, only a fraction of the voting delegates are on reference committees, so remainder can do things on the first two days.

As an aside on that topic, have we had enough Region XI delegates for all of the reference committees?

Randy

[mastratton]

Originally Posted by APhiQuetieACE

I beg to differ. Delegates are there to do the business of the fraternity. Participating in other activities is a bonus. This is just my opinion as a former delegate.

In general, yes, I agree with you. But we shouldn't have any more business than we need to have. So, I'm not for a shorter legislative session - if there's work to be done, then we do the work. But we shouldn't be making work just to make work, either.

Mark