[15152] in APO-L
Re: National Snafu
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas W. Strong Jr.)
Tue Oct 29 09:56:18 1996
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:53:59 -0500
Reply-To: "Thomas W. Strong Jr." <strong@DEMENTIA.ORG>
From: "Thomas W. Strong Jr." <strong@DEMENTIA.ORG>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199610290600.BAA01364@alycia.dementia.org>
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996 benno@US1.IBM.COM wrote:
> established for determining what it means to be a member "in good standing." In
> order to be "in good standing" one would have to perform I think at least 20
> hours of community service per semester. This is not a problem (well, it's not
The problems that I saw with that proposal were less philosophical, and
more technical. While the proposal, as written may work perfectly at the
chapter where it originated, it left out a few alternate circumstances.
As proposed, it states that every active member must do 20 hours of
service per semester, by the chapter's elections, in order to be active.
The first problem is that not all schools have semesters - some use
trimesters, some use quarters. How is the requirement modified in these
cases? If your school uses quarters, do you have to do 80 hours a year,
while if it uses semesters you need only do 40?
Next, some chapters hold anual elections, not semesterly, and worse yet,
some hold them at one of the first few metings each semester. Now you
have a requirement that at some schools never has a deadline in half of
the semesters, and could conceivably force brothers to do 20 hours of
service in less that a week in other schools.
Finally, the rationale for the proposal stated that it was to put a
requirement upon active members equal to the requirement for the pledges,
without taking into account that not every school reqires 20 hours of
service from the pledges. Some have no requirement, some require over 50
hours. Under this proposal, no matter what the requirement is upon the
pledges, it's still 20 hours for the actives.
While the idea that a requirement for active members to match the
requirement for pledges has merit, I would hope that it is at least
heavily re-written in committee before it reaches the convention floor.
I would hate to see the entire voting body have to go through the process
of re-writing this proposal into something that wouldn't cause more harm
than good.
Tom Strong
Section 62 Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas W. Strong Jr. strong@dementia.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
