[15168] in APO-L
Service Hours
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J. Busby)
Tue Oct 29 20:46:23 1996
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:47:44 -0600
Reply-To: "J. Busby" <jcb2181@BASINLINK.COM>
From: "J. Busby" <jcb2181@BASINLINK.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
I thought I might be able to add some perspective to this piece of
legislation from the point of view of an Alumnus of the Chapter (Xi Delta,
Texas A&M University) from which this piece of legislation originates.
I will admit that I am three years removed from my time at A&M and I do not
personally know the Brother who proposed this legislation. I also do not
speak for the writer of this legislation, so I may be so far off base it's
not funny. However, I am the veteran of two National Conventions (as a
Voting Delegate) and this is not a new subject with the Chapter at A&M.
This legislation propabally comes from the frustrations of a LARGE chapter
in determining who the "Active" members are and who's just dead wood. In a
chapter like Xi Delta, where pledge classes approach 200 per semester and
the rolls show almost 350~400 "active" members, this is a real issue. I
also know that in the past the number, type and participation requirements
for Xi Delta have been hotly debated and they are almost as difficult to
change as the National By-Laws.
From my on persoanl experience in dealing with the membership rolls of Xi
Delta (and I've done it within the last 6 months) the sheer number of
un-active actives is incredible. I think this is an effort to solve some
internal problems by saying it's a mandate from National.
I think the minimum service hours requirement is too short sighted,
too generalized and poorly conceived for the Fraternity as a whole. In my
years I have met many brother from many chapters where such a policy would
be a headache or hinderance to growth. I don't look for this proposal to
make it
out of committee.
James Busby
jcb2181@basinlink.com
