Letters on the Butt.

[naraht]

Couple of questions.

1) How do you feel about brothers wearing the fraternity letters on their butts?

2) Would you favor a resolution establishing national rules for wearing letters?
If so, would any of the following be on it?
a) Pledges may not wear the greek letters (spelled out in English is OK).
b) Petitioners may wear letters *only* if something they are wearing states Petitioning Group.
c) Fraternity letters may not be on the seat of sweatpants.

Anything else?

(For those swerving in, Petitioners are in Petitioning Groups which are the last stage of colonization)

Randy

[DrPhil]

Letters on the butt
Letters on the butt
Lookin like a FOOL
With yo letters on the butt

[BluPhire]

Could be worse. At least they ain't wearing Juicy. Then we will be having a whole nutha conversation.

[Senusret I]

1) Yucky.

2) If I were to introduce a bylaw amendment, it would say something like "The symbols of Alpha Phi Omega may only be worn by initiated brothers of the fraternity: actives, alumni, advisors, and honorary brothers."

I am not in favor of petitioners or pledges representing their membership through any insignia other than their pin.

I would also be in favor of empowering the National Board of Directors to institute a policy on letters -- after surveying the membership and reviewing similar policies from other organizations to compare best practices.

In other words, I would like the convention to define who may wear letters and for the national board to define how they may be worn.

[APhiQuetieACE]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

1)

I am not in favor of petitioners or pledges representing their membership through any insignia other than their pin.

I would also be in favor of empowering the National Board of Directors to institute a policy on letters -- after surveying the membership and reviewing similar policies from other organizations to compare best practices.

In other words, I would like the convention to define who may wear letters and for the national board to define how they may be worn.

CO SIGN!! I totally agree that Petitioners and Pledges should only being wearing their pins and pins and buttons for Petitioners.

Also, I don't really favor the letters being worn below the waist...or on the back. Alpha Phi Omega on the back is different.

[Pingyang]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

"The symbols of Alpha Phi Omega may only be worn by initiated brothers of the fraternity: actives, alumni, advisors, and honorary brothers."

I'd be in favor of that.

Gamma Gamma hasn't allowed pledges to wear letters in the time I've been involved. It's a privilege of being a brother. I've never seen a pledge in Section 4 wearing letters aside from those on their pledge pin. I didn't realize there were any chapters that allowed pledges to wear letters.

As for the first question: I think it's disrespectful to the fraternity to have its letters on my behind. I feel the same way about underwear/thongs. And, honestly, any writing on someone's butt is tacky, but that's a rant for another time and place.

[Senusret I]

I LOVE ME SOME GAMMA GAMMA! I met two of your brothers like seven years ago when the brother of one was visiting my alma mater. We've lost touch since then but had a good run of pen-palness.

Sidenote -- these types of traditions/rules can be enforced through our licensing agreements with vendors. For example, if you see letters on thongs then you KNOW it couldn't have possibly been made by an APO approved vendor.

We can do that, you know.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

2) If I were to introduce a bylaw amendment, it would say something like "The symbols of Alpha Phi Omega may only be worn by initiated brothers of the fraternity: actives, alumni, advisors, and honorary brothers."

This does *not* need to be a bylaw amendment, this could be done with a resolution. Resolutions don't just have to be warm and fuzzy, they can have real teeth.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I am not in favor of petitioners or pledges representing their membership through any insignia other than their pin.

Petitioners are a fuzzy category. There, I think, the need for PR trumps the other issues. The best combination, IMO, is that they need to wear something larger than their petitioning pin indicating that they are petitioners when they wear letters.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I would also be in favor of empowering the National Board of Directors to institute a policy on letters -- after surveying the membership and reviewing similar policies from other organizations to compare best practices.

Definitely should be done by resolution.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

In other words, I would like the convention to define who may wear letters and for the national board to define how they may be worn.

Sounds like a plan.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by naraht

This does *not* need to be a bylaw amendment, this could be done with a resolution. Resolutions don't just have to be warm and fuzzy, they can have real teeth.



Petitioners are a fuzzy category. There, I think, the need for PR trumps the other issues. The best combination, IMO, is that they need to wear something larger than their petitioning pin indicating that they are petitioners when they wear letters.



Definitely should be done by resolution.



Sounds like a plan.

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.

[Brother Joseph]

1) Inappropriate. The reason for wearing letters, besides reminding the brother of their obligations and the teachings of APO is to serve as publicity. I'm not sure we want to advertise our fraternity this way.

2) Yes, there should be resolutions passed on who can wear letters and how. I've never heard of pledges wearing letters but if they are that should be discouraged. The same with petitioners. Since they don't know the meaning behind the letters at that point they should wait. It would be nice for them to have something besides a tiny little pin however to show their growing and deepening commitment to the fraternity.

3) though all this talk sounds great I need to ask: what type of resolution could the convention write that would actually be enforced. When I think of resolutions I think of nice letters of congratulations, statements on issues, and answers to questions being addressed. They don't seem like things people take all that seriously. I'm probably mistaken with that but I can't thing of any strong resolution off the top of my head.

[Senusret I]

^^^ The resolution that put the remaining all-male chapters on a plan/timeline for going coed comes to mind.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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.

What about the National History and Archives Committee?

[Fatal1913]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Letters on the butt
Letters on the butt
Lookin like a FOOL
With yo letters on the butt

LOL.

Letts on the butt SO not cute!

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Letters on the butt
Letters on the butt
Lookin like a FOOL
With yo letters on the butt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxCSSzb0I9o

"What what, on the butt,
What what, on the butt,
You wanna put it on my butt?
On my 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