[9871] in APO-L
term limits
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ian Douglas Agranat)
Thu Oct 20 18:01:34 1994
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 18:00:49 -0400
Reply-To: Ian Douglas Agranat <ian@AGRANAT.COM>
From: Ian Douglas Agranat <ian@AGRANAT.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
I have a problem with mandatory term limit rules both in our Fraternity and
within our country's national, state, and local elections.
In a democracy, we the people (or Brothers, as the case may be (not to say that
Brothers are not people!)) have the power to elect anyone we choose to
represent us.
We already have the power to enforce term limits - all that is necessary is
for someone to run against an incumbant and for us to vote in favor of the
new face over the old (should we choose to do so).
However, by forcing the issue with mandatory term limits, our choices as
votors are reduced. What if the incumbant really is our best choice? (Or
worse, our only choice?) Why should we the electorate not have the freedom
to vote for experience if we believe that to be more important?
With the strong anti-incumbant mood sweeping the nation, it is not
surprising that there are many term limitation referenda on this year's
ballots, and perhaps not surprising that this sentiment has found its way
into our fraternity as well.
Certainly in active chapters with enough members, there will be competition
for leadership positions. And in these cases, especially at the undergraduate
level, I believe strongly that incumbants should yield their positions in
order to provide leadership oportunities to other Brothers.
But what about small chapters in which there are physically not enough
members to fill every position?
And the problem is much worse for staff (board members, regional directors,
section chairs, etc.) Alumni volunteers have many commitments (work, family,
etc.) and there are very few Brothers who are willing to make the commitment
it takes to hold these positions effectively. And perhaps this is why we
have so many familiar faces in our National, Regional, and Sectional
leadership.
With mandatory term limitations, what is a Region in a sparsely populated
part of the country supposed to do if there is nobody else who can make the
commitment to being a Regional director?
If you want change, vote for the other guy/gal (if there is one). But don't
take away my right to choose who represents me (not that I personally have
such a right as an alumnus). And don't force someone to step down if nobody
is willing to take their place.
Respectfully,
Ian Douglas Agranat, EZ '87, Section 96 staff (past Section 95 chair)
