[16341] in APO-L
Re: Question about Post-chartering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JURBACHI@FOREST.DREW.EDU)
Mon Mar 3 19:02:44 1997
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:58:53 -0500
Reply-To: JURBACHI@FOREST.DREW.EDU
From: JURBACHI@FOREST.DREW.EDU
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In article <forest924151@drew.edu>, "Howard P. Wolf" <hpw@PO.CWRU.EDU> writes:
>
> My questions: Is this a common phenomenon???
> If so, WHY??? (while I have my own thoughts, I'm curious about
> what others think)
> What can be done in an attempt to prevent this???
>
Howard,
I was the Petitioning Group President at Pi Upsilon Chapter (Drew
University) after having been the individual who pursued the re-activation
of a chapter on my campus. I am pleased to say that the chapter has been
chartered since May 1995, I am a second semester senior and am still
active. I do have a reason that I feel this is true.
Although I was the spark that started the process as well as the
Petitioning Group President, I was NOT the first Chapter President after
re-activation. In fact, the semester after we chartered I spent in London.
When I returned, the chapter had undergone some natural growing pains,
but, I feel, was stronger for my having not been there. I was
subsequently elected the second President of the Chapter and all was well.
I believe that a brother whose project petitioning was from start to
finished can become TOO atached and TOO much associated with the
leadership role. This can cause a degree of apathy or resentment from
other brothers who don't have the same strong emotional bond to the
chapter. This can also cause stress for all of those involved.
Like I said, my chapter has 53 active members, 20 pledges, 12 Associate
members and 9 advisors so my story turned out for the best.
Hope this provides some insight.
J.D. Urbach, II
Pi Upsilon Chapter
Drew University
1996 Nat. Convention Scouting Relations Ref. Com.
