[16351] in APO-L
Re: Question about Post-chartering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy Gagliardi)
Tue Mar 4 09:38:31 1997
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:22:06 -0500
Reply-To: Jeremy.Gagliardi@cpmx.saic.com
From: Jeremy Gagliardi <Jeremy.Gagliardi@cpmx.saic.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Ellen Kranzer wrote:
*snip*
> know much about us yet. Until they learn more about the fraternity and
> whether or not they want to be part of APO and we want them as part of APO,
> they shouldn't be members. Also, for legal liability reasons, a number of
> the lawyers around were nervous about petitioners as members. In the case
> of pledges, you have brothers right there on campus to education them about
> the fraternity and presumably exert some control on what is done in the name
> of APO. With petitioners, while there is staff supervision, it's not really
> the same. A petitioning group could go out and do something problematic in
> the name of APO long before the staff go wind of it. [none of this should
> be construed to mean that I agree with the particular argument]
*snip*
When we were a Petitioning Group (Jan 92 through April 93) (now Alpha
Gamma Chi), Sectional Staff strongly urged us to wear "Petitioning
Group" or at least "PG" on everything that contained the fraternity
name, letters, or symbols. A lot of us got 2" buttons that said
"Petitioning Group" to wear on our blue & gold APO sweatshirts. While
we were all "members" of the fraternity, we had no brotherhood
supervision. Therefore, we were not trusted to carry the name fully.
It was a kind of disclaimer to show everyone that we were not yet
standing on our own.
L8r,
o-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-o
| From the PC of Jeremy Gagliardi |
| mailto:Jeremy.Gagliardi@cpmx.saic.com |
| http://www.psychlone.com/dcaao/jjg.htm |
o-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-o
