[13098] in APO-L
Re: Voting on Pledges...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Finder)
Fri Oct 27 13:00:19 1995
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 12:57:35 -0400
Reply-To: Randy Finder <naraht@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
From: Randy Finder <naraht@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <01HWXNX0ER04HWAFAL@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Liston Bias wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Randy Finder wrote:
>
> > > 19. METHOD OF SELECTION following pledging. An appropriate period of
> > > pledging includes objective determinations for eligibility to receive
> > > active membership based upon the individual's successful completion of
> > > program requirements. The completion by a pledge of all chapter
> > > requirements established at the beginning of the pledging experience is a
> > > strong indivation that active membership may not be denied by the chapter.
> >
> > What that ends up meaning in real terms is the following...
> > 1)A chapter should have a purely objective set of requirements.
>
> I actually thought to interpret differently... First of all, can one have
> an objective determination of subjective requirements? I was thinking one
> could say they do if one of the criteria was "meets the spirit of the
> principles." Secondly, if pledging is "more than a set of requirements"
> then we add to above a subjective factor and then vote.
NO, but one can have an objective determination of objective (freudian
slip, I wrote "objection") requirements. The way that this is written
there is an overall subjective requirement, but it has to be very rarely
used. (as I talked about in 2). Basically "Will this person becoming a
brother hurt the chapter."
>
> > 2)If a pledge passes them, the chapter better have a damn good reason to
> > deny them membership. (Doesn't need to be quite as strong as reasons for
> > suspending a brother from chapter membership, but should be close)
>
> Interesting... Does Robert's Rules provide for suspending membership? I
> know you can kick someone out of meeting with Robert's Rules.
>
No, but the National by-laws do.
> > 3)If a pledge does not pass them, a chapter still has the right to vote
> > them in.
>
> Hey that is what OSU is doing :-)
And what a lot of chapters do. Regional Directors tend not to be called
when people get in. They do occasionally get called when people don't get in.
(which can often be a HUGE headache)
>
> > 4)However the pledge requirements should not be set so high that the
> > chapter ends up being able to vote on all (or most) pledges on a regular
> > basis.
>
> OSU actually set their standards quite high (we think) even though we ask
> nothing of pledges we don't ask of brothers (other than signatures and
> knowledge stuff we already did). We expect their actions to convey their
> interest. If they are not serious about us then we will not be serious
> about them.
By high, I mean requirements that there is a reasonable expectation that
a high percentage (say 75%) of the pledges won't make it. By raising the
requirements that high, the chapter is back to voting on everyone.
>
> In closing, I don't think the above means much of anything.... The
> rationale behind it is obviously to prevent black-balling or popularity
> votes, but whenever you have a vote you risk this. Tell me to trust my
> brother... I have enough trouble trusting self with voting. I vote with
> instincts...
The first time someone doesn't get in and the denied pledge calls your
Regional Director, you will probably understand this much more.
Unfortunately, whether that good reason is good enough tends to be a
judgement call by the Regional Director.
>
> What are we being subjective about?
> * does this person fit in
> * do they meet the "spirit" of the principles
> * are they like us
> * are they a threat
> * do we think they are a bad person
Unfortunately number 4 may be the only one that can be supported. :(
>
> I'm not saying that above isn't valid. I think they are. Our group just
> doesn't want to go there. Guaranteeing someone (whether international,
> black, white, male, female, homo-sexual, smart, dum, etc.) that they will
> be inviting into our active membership if they complete x,y,z is more
> important. Maybe my experience is strongly skued, but people like
> guarantees... it is difficult enought to get involved with people unlike
> you without knowing they will except you if you don't "gel." I keep
> hearing how many chapters are subjective in their voting but they have not
> ever seen anyone voted down - it's just there to protect them. I think we
> loose people (diversity) way before voting when we are subjective.
Agreed on the last statement as well. "Encouraging" pledges to drop out
I'm sure happens a lot more than voting them down.
However I have seen pledges voted down, and the Regional Director called
because of it...
>
> If voting works in your chapter, go for it!
>
Just keep the standards in mind....
> Just my 3 cents... I think I got winded :-)
>
Thats OK. :)
YiLFS
Randy Finder
Section 84 staff
--
Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega
