National President

deltasigyitbos · #1 06-02-2003, 01:37 PM

To Those Who May Deem It Necessary:

The purpose of this message is to discuss the future leadership of the fraternity and examine possible situations surrounding our upcoming National Convention. Specifically, the focus of this communiqué centers on the election process for our nationally elected leaders.

The election of new leadership should be a positive process for our organization. However, as you know, some members will not allow this peaceful process to occur. Likewise, as you know, further contentiousness and confrontation will serve no purpose but to seriously derail the progress of the organization. It is for this reason that all attempts must be exhausted, prior to convention, to reach a just and peaceful agreement. This will be the final attempt at such a process.

In order to avoid unwanted contentiousness and confrontation, we are requesting that you withdraw your name from consideration for the office of National President. We are further requesting that this officially be done by Monday, June 23rd 2003, noon EST, in writing to the National Grand Council. If this is done, it will enable the Convention focus to remain on positive programming and a peaceful celebration of our renewed sprit. This focus is something that all of our brothers want, and more importantly, deserve.

At this time, numerous attempts have been made to ensure a peaceful Convention, one with little controversy and contention. Be there no mistake, this will be the last and final attempt to communicate our desire for you to withdraw from consideration. If this final attempt is ignored, following June 23rd noon EST, steps to ensure a successful transition of fraternal leadership will ensue under a timetable of our choosing.

DeltaSigStan · #2 06-06-2003, 01:41 PM

I'm not really sure whom you are addressing here, but there's no one in contention for running for National President that posts on these message board.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as he doesn't try to implement a lot of the bullshit that Hockman did (which ultimately hurt us number wise, chapter wise and in other areas.)

33girl · #3 06-06-2003, 01:49 PM

Ok, I'll back out.

I know this is absolutely none of my business, but since you put it out there...

"Peaceful" should not be a goal for a convention - truly bettering the organization (even if that includes confrontation and controversy) should be. Blind faith should not be a prerequisite for Greek membership.

BTW Stan, nice to see you back.

DeltaSigStan · #4 06-06-2003, 02:24 PM

Thanks my ASA Sweetie.

I completely agree. I'm going to the convention to gather information that I can bring back to my chapter and better us, not to get into a political war between seperate factions.

Delta Sig in the 90s was one of the top fraternities in the country. Now, membership is WAY down, many aren't paying dues, and many other chapters (including mine) are not living up to the potential that we should have and are suffering. A lot of this is due to this vision that Hockman had, and I'd like to see some of the change that I heard about at RLA.

Rock Knobbster · #5 06-09-2003, 07:23 PM

First of all, conventions are contentious and it is out of that conflict we grow as an organization. We are fortunate the convention remains the highest authority of our fraternity. Electronic communication allows us to carry on the debate well after the gavel has closed the convention.

I know many of us are unhappy with the way National has been running things for the last few years. I encourage you to get involved in the process, help elect the new administration, and send a clear message the members want to see change.

As for the tone of your post. I have no tolerance for threats. I have personally had enough "anonymous" attacks over the years. If you want to engage in a debate, then by all means do so. If you don't want the fraternity to have a gay president, then state your case. If you think Brother Bertolino was less than forthright when he was elected to the Grand Council two years ago, then state that. But to set a deadline and make a demand, that is cowardly.

If you have a problem, state it clearly and be willing to defend your position. If you are a brother of this fraternity, I will give you the respect deserving that status--as you should do for our Grand Council members. Our fraternity needs reform--BADLY--but this is not the way to go about it. I hope to see you in Chicago and join in the debate.

dspchamy · #6 06-25-2003, 01:04 PM

You don't run for President. The president is selected from the board, traditionally the past presidents slate the new president for the approval of the board. May want to brush up on the constitution before yall head to Chicago

SouthDeltsig · #7 06-25-2003, 04:48 PM

DspChamy

I think you should be the one reading the bylaws. No where does it mention that the Past President brings forward a slate of officers. It is stunts like these that make undergrads sick. It is stunts like these that force the unionization of a group of people. Manipulation of the rules serves no purpose but corruption. And remember, just because it has been done this way in the past, does not mean it will be done this way for 03. Please Learn the rules. Then show up ready to make a good decision.

dspchamy · #8 06-25-2003, 05:25 PM

You are correct, it does not say that verbatim in the bylaws, but the is why it is prefaced with the word traditionally. It does hit to the point in the constitution article listed below. While bylaws can be suspended, the constitution can not with out 90 days notice and a vote can be created at convention, unfortunately this is normally taken care of after the elections occur.

Delta Sig Constitution
Article 3 Section E Sub-section 3

Officers of the Grand Council, except the immediate past President and the Undergraduate Member, shall be elected from the members of the new Grand Council before the last session of each biennial convention by a combination of incoming, outgoing, and continuing members of the grand Council. They shall be elected for a term of two years and shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified

SouthDeltsig · #9 06-25-2003, 05:59 PM

True, but not until 1991 was this a possibility. Until 1991 this practice was not done at all, per Grand Council members who were on the council at the time. While the word traditional may be used, I will refer to your message in another post where you say "challenge the process." You can rest assured the votes are there to elect a person. The person will not be left out because Louis Rip or John Boma want a particular candidate. He will not win under any circumstances.

dspchamy · #10 06-25-2003, 06:35 PM

Why do you keep making the statement my mistakes, I am not, nor ever been on the grand council. Nor did I vote for the challege in 97, 99 or 01

And who is the pre ordanined president that you are making reffrence. I am making the point that until all elected grand council officers are there, only then can we determine who is even eligible for being president.

If I had a vote for who the next president would be I would voted for Hoffman, but that is just me all I can do is help people get elected.

dspboskey · #11 06-26-2003, 09:58 PM

dspchamy,

Why would you choose Hoffman? I don't know him or why you feel he would be the best candidate. Can you please provide some insight for the rest of the members that will be voting on this issue?

dspchamy · #12 06-26-2003, 10:21 PM

Hoffman was on the ACB at Arizona State and fought HQ to get his chapter a pool. They are the only chapter that has a pool and are grandfathered into the policy.

He also has experience on other non for profit boards. I do believe he was on the Boy Scouts of America Board of Directors, but please do not hold me to that.

Another big plus he is a bussiness man, which is what our board desperatly needs. Paring him and Stan Mclemore (sp?) bussiness and finacial background, would be great addtions to our board.

Two of the other candidates have great upside. Kipp and Northern have been national volunteers for a long time and have ACB experience. Kipp was a founding father of his chapter and actually got the HQ to purchase their chapter house. I would not look for him to advocate that, but pretty impressive non the less They should be a coin toss on who gets choosen, in my opinion they are virtualy the same with experience and love of our great fraternity.

Wild Bill on the other had should not even be a consideration, we want strong ethical leaders. Not ones that pass out in convention assembled in a golf shit and a tie. But everyone has a vote and those votes are what count.

Watch for the people that don't run for the floor if they are not choosen form the selection committee they are the people that care and trust that our organization is in the right hands with the people the selection committee.

These individuals should be praised for their respect of tradition!

dspboskey · #13 06-26-2003, 10:26 PM

Thanks for the insight.

Good information