[9964] in APO-L
National Amendments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven R. Crawford)
Tue Nov 1 10:00:28 1994
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 09:57:28 -0500
Reply-To: "Steven R. Crawford" <crawf_s@CS.ODU.EDU>
From: "Steven R. Crawford" <crawf_s@CS.ODU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
I have just read all of the proposed amendments (whew!) and I fail to see
the rationale (yes I did read it and the update sent on 10/14). First
off, I would like to know if the ENTIRE National Board of Directors
support this motion. I know that they will probably say "of course" to
show unity, but do they really? I also want to know if there is any
confusion about us being a co-ed fraternity as stated. I have only seen
it on almost every publication that "we" put out. I disagree with the
'Nobody has to "give in"' statement, changing it is changing it. The we
did it before so lets do it again explaination sounds like a poor
excuse. I have heard a lot of people saying that it is too long as it
stands now, so why add another verse. I do not like the rewording and
the female members of my chapter (the ones I have talked with so far)
seem to like it as it stands. When this does come for debate, I hope
that we will remember that we are brothers in friendship.
(I am of course refering to page 49 - 50 of the Proposed Amendments)
One last thing, what is the background on electing a National Treasurer,
it sounds like a good idea. I am just curious as to why it came up now
and not before. In other words, what changed? (if anything)
******************************************************************************
* Steven R. Crawford * Internet : crawf_s@cs.odu.edu *
* "The Highlander" * URL: http://www.odu.edu:70/gnusers/src/home.html *
******************************************************************************
