Letters on the Butt.

[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