[15455] in APO-L
Resolutions vs. Amendments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Reuben ``Fuzz'' Hochstedler)
Mon Nov 11 12:33:34 1996
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:27:15 -0500
Reply-To: "Reuben ``Fuzz'' Hochstedler" <hochstrd@CS.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
From: "Reuben ``Fuzz'' Hochstedler" <hochstrd@CS.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
All of the rebuttal to my previously posted points seems to be missing
the thrust of my main point. We have 3 resolutions (it was stated
that there were 5 but I'll get to that later) dealing with the
infamous "1976 Gentleman's Agreement". While discussing these a
number of people have ended their comments with the phrase "actually
writing it down in our bylaws" (that's a paraphrase).
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A BYLAW AMENDMENT! These are resolutions.
Resolutions only require a simple majority to pass. They are intended
for determining such things as National Service Day themes, directing
the president to form committees to study something (a fairly popular
one actually), etc. In fact, reference committees can and have come
up with resolutions AT the National Convention.
Bylaw amendments on the other hand require quorum to be present and at
least a three-fourths affirmative vote to pass. They must be
submitted to the national office 90 days ahead of time, they can then
be modified by the committee and the floor but only within the scope
of how it is currently stated and the original proposal. (Typical
example: proposal to raise AAMDs from $8 to $12, can be changed on the
floor to $10 but not to $6 and not to $14.)
These resolutions CANNOT change our bylaws, the standard chapter
articles of association, articles of incorporation, rituals,
ceremonies or toast song because they are _resolutions_.
In fact the one relevant document that resolutions could change these
resolutions do not attempt to. Those are the Membership Policies.
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~hochstrd/aphio/about/pledge/p45.html
A good read if you get the time.
The other two resolutions mentioned are not specifically targetted at
the issue being discussed as they cover the whole of the published
membership policies. This would include infractions due to hazing,
attempting to use a modified form of the rituals, alcohol use during
rush and pledging, etc. Since the Membership Policies already have an
Enforcement clause that those resolutions did not attempt to modify to
accomplish their goal, I also find them to becoming a bit short of the
mark technically speaking.
I'll say this one more time and then not say it again, this is my main
point: These resolutions attempt to force a change that should
require a 75% affirmative vote with quorum present but by only using a
50% affirmative vote. That is wrong. I am not arguing for or against
these resolutions, just the manner in which they are attempting to be
deployed.
InLFS,
Reuben "Fuzz" Hochstedler
+-- Current ---------------------------------------------------------------+
| mailto:hochstrd@eecs.umich.edu http://www.cs.rose-hulman.edu/~hochstrd/ |
| http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~hochstrd/ mailto:hochstrd@cs.rose-hulman.edu |
+------------------------------------------------------------- Permanent --+
