Removing an e-board officer

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

This. You need back up when you approach him, but under no circumstances should you let this slide. You won't be doing him or your chapter any favors. Your by laws require a GPA cutoff for a reason. Hopefully he will just gracefully step aside, but having the proper procedures outlines should he not is important. This has happened many times in chapters I've advised. It's not the end of the world, but it can start some drama. Good luck.

The chapter is still in control of its own bylaws. If they are willing to let this slide, they can change the bylaws. If not, if they bylaws say he's removed from office, unless there's a procedure for suspending the bylaws, he's outta there.

Bylaws are useful, but make sure they're serving you and not the other way around.

[carnation]

I think that situations like this work out a lot better when an alum/advisory board member approaches the member about it. So often the member is approached by an active officer whose GPA may be barely above the required GPA (and they both know it) and anyway, using an alum can deflect some drama and embarrassment.

[33girl]

First off, you shouldn't have let him run (I assume he was elected this past fall) for the position to begin with if his Spring 2012 grades were also below the requirement, which it sounds like they were.

Secondly, what is all this about "saving him embarassment"? Dude SHOULD be embarrassed. He didn't keep his grades where they were supposed to be, so he loses his position. Period.

Thirdly, if the only person you can get to run for rush chair is someone whose very obvious shortcomings you needed to overlook, you have larger problems within your chapter.

[carnation]

I'm talking about saving another active from being embarrassed. It's hard to talk with a peer about something like this. As a current advisor to a fraternity chapter, I know that there are officers (kind people but nonconfrontational) who are effective and fabulous but hate to deliver bad news to brothers. Yeah, they should be all noble and rush to do it for the sake of the fraternity but they're human.

[33girl]

It's not them that are doing it. It's the bylaws. Like I said, it sounds like this chapter suffers from lack of cojones anyway if this dude is the only one they can get to fill the rush chair. That's a bigger problem than whether he should stay or go.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The chapter is still in control of its own bylaws. If they are willing to let this slide, they can change the bylaws. If not, if they bylaws say he's removed from office, unless there's a procedure for suspending the bylaws, he's outta there.

Bylaws are useful, but make sure they're serving you and not the other way around.

They may not have an option to change their by laws to allow officers to be on academic probation. It would also be a bad precedent. Also, technically, if you change your bylaws, it shouldn't change your chapter's actions retroactively. Having bylaws would be useless if you just changed them everytime you wanted to get around them.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

They may not have an option to change their by laws to allow officers to be on academic probation. It would also be a bad precedent. Also, technically, if you change your bylaws, it shouldn't change your chapter's actions retroactively. Having bylaws would be useless if you just changed them everytime you wanted to get around them.

Well, that would be true maybe with your organization, but I can speak to Sigma Nu in that if the bylaws were voted to be suspended for that purpose or they were changed and deemed retroactive, our President decides all points of law and order, so procedurally, that'd work. I can only speak for my own group though.

Also, whether they could do that might depend on their HQ governing documents or some rules which they're not allowed to suspend. Robert's rules, however, and most bylaws provide for a suspension of the rules or a suspension of a bylaw if you have enough votes to pull it off. Documents need to be flexible enough to give structure while not holding the organization back as a whole.

The problem with being chartered in 2004 is that they likely don't have much of an alumni support network. As a founding member of my chapter, I remember exactly what our advisory group looked like when our chapter was 6 years old. We had one chapter adviser, who did a terrific job, but probably wasn't the strongest or best person to ask how to resolve issues under the bylaws.

Now, whether you should lower your standards is a whole 'nother discussion. We're social organizations, not academic honors societies, but GPA requirements being met and performance as a whole do correlate. Being chartered in 2004, they have the luxury of not being able to bring down the wrath of the alumni which would definitely happen in my nearly 11 year old chapter (as in the last 3 years, we've put together some pretty cohesive and organized alumni entities) and maybe lowering standards would be a good temporary fix if they do some real work to address their academic deficiencies.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well, that would be true maybe with your organization, but I can speak to Sigma Nu in that if the bylaws were voted to be suspended for that purpose or they were changed and deemed retroactive, our President decides all points of law and order, so procedurally, that'd work. I can only speak for my own group though.

Also, whether they could do that might depend on their HQ governing documents or some rules which they're not allowed to suspend. Robert's rules, however, and most bylaws provide for a suspension of the rules or a suspension of a bylaw if you have enough votes to pull it off. Documents need to be flexible enough to give structure while not holding the organization back as a whole.

The problem with being chartered in 2004 is that they likely don't have much of an alumni support network. As a founding member of my chapter, I remember exactly what our advisory group looked like when our chapter was 6 years old. We had one chapter adviser, who did a terrific job, but probably wasn't the strongest or best person to ask how to resolve issues under the bylaws.

Now, whether you should lower your standards is a whole 'nother discussion. We're social organizations, not academic honors societies, but GPA requirements being met and performance as a whole do correlate. Being chartered in 2004, they have the luxury of not being able to bring down the wrath of the alumni which would definitely happen in my nearly 11 year old chapter (as in the last 3 years, we've put together some pretty cohesive and organized alumni entities) and maybe lowering standards would be a good temporary fix if they do some real work to address their academic deficiencies.

And that is why I said "may not have an option" and "shouldn't." Your experience as a Sigma Nu may not be applicable. The second paragraph of your post is important. The other consideration is that recruitment is a big job. Causing a member who is already struggling academically to threaten his education by taking on such a huge position is irresponsible. To pretend that being a social organization means they have no responsibilities academically is ridiculous.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The chapter is still in control of its own bylaws. If they are willing to let this slide, they can change the bylaws. If not, if they bylaws say he's removed from office, unless there's a procedure for suspending the bylaws, he's outta there.

Bylaws are useful, but make sure they're serving you and not the other way around.

For us, this is a hard and fast rule that cannot be changed. This is why it is important for them to find out the rules and procedures for their organization. None of us can speak to that without knowing the organization.