[15148] in APO-L
Re: National Snafu
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kathryn E Zibell)
Tue Oct 29 01:29:11 1996
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 00:27:37 -0600
Reply-To: Kathryn E Zibell <kzibell@GAC.EDU>
From: Kathryn E Zibell <kzibell@GAC.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199610290601.AAA21594@solen.gac.edu> from "benno@US1.IBM.COM" at
Oct 29, 96 00:58:07 am
> after that. In order to obtain a Life Membership, you need to either be a
> current undergrad, or an alumni member IN GOOD STANDING with the fraternity.
> Just being the anally retentive technocrat that I am, I will point out that
> this would mandate alumni that wish to become life members to perform at least
> 20 hours of service per semester. This will prolly be a touchy issue. I
> personally have no problem with it, I just think that our VD's need to be aware
> of this.
That is why there are committees to think things through before
they get submitted to the floor. If the good standing clause passes,
automatically undergrads who want life memberships will have to be in good
standing. The way it is worded in the amemdment only refers to brothers
in good standing for the $50 recent alumni, not alumni who are paying the
full amount.
> There are a few things that kind of bug me tho, and I might as well say
> something here. First of all, a national service requirement, although it is a
> very noble intention, would be very difficult to enforce at the national level.
> The national office would have to leave it up to the chapters to enforce, and
> it really doesn't work that well. We tried this for a while at ADH at SUNY
> Albany, but it didn't work.
I would agree. After our rechartering, we had a 25 hour a
semester service hour requirement. We have since changed active standards
to a certain number of projects a semester. Counting hours is a pain.
> I think this is also a very bad idea. There are many people around that the
> national board could prolly benefit from, and to shut them out like that would
> just not be right. I wouldn't mind a proposed motion that new life members
> would need a majority of the board's vote, but just blanketly shutting out
> someone's input based simply on the fact that they did not serve as national
> president is absurd.
Currently I believe that anyone who has served 20 years on the
national board is a life member. I feel that the life membership of the
board needs to be restricted because of the number of people who are
attaining that status. The board needs to be currently active in the
fraternity and to limit the ranks of the national board to those who are
currently involved with the undergrads. The board should reflect the current
membership of the fraternity, those ELECTED by the undergraduates.
> Generally, most of the crap that is being brought forward is nothing short of a
> waste of time.
Every brother has a right to submit amendments. Committees have
the power to not bring things out of committee that they do not feel is
relevant. What is seen as actually important usually makes it to the
floor to be voted on by the brotherhood.
kat zibell
ZE President
Gustavus Adolphus College
St. Peter, MN
