Removing an e-board officer

[RCM2020]

In November 2012 we have the elections for our seven executive officers. Their office terms begin January 1, 2013. Well, the President and I recently received grade releases for all of our members from the Fall 2012 semester. We found out our 2013 recruitment chair did not do well at all. His semester GPA was a 2.1 and his cumulative GPA dropped from a 2.95 to a 2.65. This is a problem because (1) this is his second semester with a semester GPA below our chapter requirement, which is a 3.0 every semester, and according to our local bylaws, he is now placed on social and academic probation, which makes him a member not in good standing (a requirement to be an officer), and (2) to hold an executive officer position your cumulative GPA must be a 2.8, and he no longer has this.

This is the first time this has happened ever in our chapter. We've only been re-charted since 2004 so who knows what happened years before that. What is the best way to approach this? For me, this is a very simple numbers game; he does not meet the requirements, he is no longer in good standing, so it is not fair to the chapter to have the recruitment chair stay the recruitment chair. However, there is a severe lack of interest in running for the recruitment chair position.

It's an ethical decision, because we could just not tell anyone his grades and pretend nothing happened, but I am not comfortable doing that. I strive in holding high standards, too, so in my eyes this is unacceptable. Regardless of what I think, what steps should we take to handle this? Do we talk to him and see if he is having some personal issues? Is it the presidents decisions? Is it standards board? Overall it's a violation of the bylaws, but do we make it this black and white, or do we explore a possible gray area?

Any suggestions are appreciated. Sorry for this long novel.

[aesovs]

I think the way to handle this is unique to each organization. Could you talk to an advisor about it? Or maybe an alum who might know more?

For my GLO, this would be a standards issue and the officer would more likely than not be asked to step down, but I can only speak for my specific chapter of my GLO; it could be different for your chapter. Basically, though, the point of holding an executive office is not only to serve your fraternity, but to set an example for other members. Regardless of personal situation (obviously barring extreme cases), this officer should've known the consequences of making bad grades, especially if it's something you stress during officer selection and elections.

As for the lack of interest in the position, that's probably secondary to allowing a member not in good standing to hold office. I'm sure you could probably rope someone into it, and if not, then maybe the officer with the bad grades could come back after a semester on probation? Provided he's re-elected into office and meets other requirements, of course.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by RCM2020

For me, this is a very simple numbers game; he does not meet the requirements, he is no longer in good standing, so it is not fair to the chapter to have the recruitment chair stay the recruitment chair.

This.

However, this really should be a question for an advisor.

[greekdee]

Clearly, your brother is having some academic struggles. Recruitment Chair can be a demanding position to hold. If he was unable to meet grade requirements for two semesters -- while NOT holding this executive office -- then it's unlikely he'll be able to manage his academics while he does carry the RC responsibilities. It is not in his best interest to be allowed to remain in the position.

You say this is the first time this situation has come up since your rechartering. Remember, how you handle this will set direction for the future. If you let him slide (and 2.1 is quite a slide from a semester requirement of 3.0), what message does that send the chapter about your seriousness in regard to grades, your respect for by-laws and your follow through with consequences for members not remaining in good standing? I know you mentioned keeping this quiet and moving forward as though nothing happened, but believe me, this info always finds its way out!

As much as I would hate to have to do it, I would ask him to resign his RC position. This can be done kindly and with assurance that the chapter values his membership and wants to see him succeed. I would certainly ask him what he thinks the problem is and what the chapter can do to help him improve his grades. Do you have mandatory study hours for brothers who are not meeting grade requirements? If not, this might be a good time to implement them. Maybe some brothers can recommend tutors.

I understand that RC is often a difficult position to fill. Why? Because it's not an easy-breezy role to be in. As with any office, it really does need to be held by someone who has demonstrated their ability to balance academics with Greek Life. Does your chapter have a minimum GPA to pledge? If so, imagine how you'll feel upholding this when your own RC isn't even in good academic standing?! That's just not quite right.

Back in my day, and in my chapter, this would have either been handled by the standards committee, or possibly only by the president and another board member who actually saw the grades (sounds as though that may be you in your chapter). You really have an open and shut case. Qualifications to serve have not been met, and the resolution is clearly defined in your by-laws. However, do take this up with your chapter adviser.

As unpleasant as these situations are, you are actually getting some "real world" experience, as similar dilemmas come up in the professional realm as well. Good luck to you -- you sound like a level headed young man who wants to handle this responsibly, ethically and maturely. And best wishes to your brother. I hope he gets back on track with his academics and returns to good standing.

[AGDee]

We have specific documented procedures for this situation. If you can't find that kind of documentation in officer handbooks, check with an advisor and if the advisor doesn't know, check with your regional coordinator/director for your organization. If all else fails, call your headquarters.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AGDee

We have specific documented procedures for this situation. If you can't find that kind of documentation in officer handbooks, check with an advisor and if the advisor doesn't know, check with your regional coordinator/director for your organization. If all else fails, call your headquarters.

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.

[FSUZeta]

It would be a kind gesture to offer him some academic assistance, such as a brother in the same major who could tutor him or in the least pointing him in the direction of on campus tutoring services.

Does your chapter require documented study hours for brothers whose GPA is under 3.0?
That might help, too.

[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.