|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
Home > Meeting Minutes > February 13
Brotherhood Meeting Minutes: 2/13/05
Brothers in Attendance: Erica, Tommy, Dave, Jim, Aaron, Charlie, JJ, Alyssa, Adrienne, Nathan, Nicole, Kyle, Josh, Paul, Pat, Kim, Shaun, David P., David H., Ben, Diana, Matt, & Brian
Convened at 7:06pm, EST.
President: Advisor Mixer this upcoming Wednesday, 2/23. Interestingly, this was not the upcoming Wednesday at the time of the meeting…
SVP:
1.Thanks to everyone who came to help serve food at a local church. The event went well, and attendance was better than expected.
2.Update: Overnighter will not be postponed, but rather relocated…indoors, that is!
MVP:
1.We have 4 awesome new pledges! Their first meeting was this past Thursday.
2.There will theoretically be another TDW on Monday, 2/21. Stay tuned for updates—UPDATE: Way to show up, people…
FVP: Thanks to Tommy for chairing I-Banquet. Unfortunately, everything else reported is out of date at the time the stupid RecSec got to typing this…my bad. Come to events!
Treasurer: Nada.
RecSec: The MOB chart has been updated to reflect some changes in status. The brotherhood list is now out, as well, and it’s very cool—but it would be even cooler if you could all get back to me soon with corrections *hint* *hint*…
CorSec: Take a look at the Sectionals packet in the office. It will be hosted by IΩ at SUNY Brockport, 4/1-4/3. The cost is $35 until 3/11 and $40 after that date. There will also be jackalope shirts available for $17. In any case, see Erica if you’re interested.
Intermission: Motion to smack Shaun for playing cards—passes unanimously…
Historian:
1.I hate IED.
2.Correction: the time for the Composite is 8:30-10:00pm.
SAA: The armory gnomes are having a party.
OM: I have mastered the art of invisibility at meetings… ;-)
Old Business: The PLEDGE MANUAL!!! (So it begins…)
The debate here was on the proposed existence of pledge requirements as listed in the Pledge Manual, as opposed to guidelines. The difference between the two is simple: if a pledge has not met the requirements in time, he/she will not come up for a vote. I will try to summarize the arguments put forth by each side in a Pro/Con format. I apologize in advance if any of you feel that points are missing. I will do my best to include all net relevant arguments in a summarized form, essentially so that the gist of what occurred can be more readily understood (I hope).
First, a summary of motions (I have omitted queue-related motions, as they aren’t really relevant here):
Motion: to approve the pledging requirements as presented.
Submotion 1: essentially, to create a provision that would allow the MVP and Pledgemaster to institute make-up options for pledging requirements as they see fit. (Passes)
Submotion 2: to vote on the motion by secret ballot. (Fails)
Submotion 3: to reduce the roomtalk requirement to 75% of actives. (Fails)
Submotion 4: to remove passing the Office Final as a pledging requirement. (Fails)
Motion Passes.
Next, the discussion (numbers indicate perceived counter-arguments). Remember that these reflect opinions, so words expressed definitely are reflecting the beliefs of either side to the best of my ability, as presented. Basically, pretend that I threw in the word, “may”, wherever possible:
Yay, requirements!
Long live guidelines!
Requirements remove or lessen some of the adverse, subjective aspects of voting (i.e. making this a “popularity contest”, as opposed to dedication-based). They provide a concrete, defined measurement of a pledge’s commitment to the fraternity that is currently lacking.
Past voting meetings have erupted into chaos as a result of purely subjective evaluation.
Being a brother involves and requires more than service—the requirements ensure bonding with brothers, as well as other necessary elements for being a part of the chapter.
Requirements do not remove subjectivity in voting, or do so in an unfairly biased manner.
What problems have there been in the past?
That a pledge may not have met all guidelines/requirements/whatever does not necessarily reflect poorly upon their dedication to the chapter in the present or future, and this is something that should be left to subjective determination. In other words, a pledge with lower-than-average hours of any sort during the pledging process can become as active a brother as any, and he/she should not be punished due to current time constraints.
These requirements are not unreasonable, and are less demanding than previous guidelines. Case in point: every pledge for Fall ’04 exceeded 20 service hours.
Currently, we are the only chapter in this area without a requirement-based system. Adopting such a system ensures unification on this front and better conforms to principles set forth by the National Bylaws and Pledging Standards.
The Bylaws have been broken in the past to allow for extenuating circumstances. Again, requirements would follow the Bylaws more closely. (NOTE: Submotion 1 [“Aaron’s Clause”] was passed at this point in discussion.)
Bonding is an ongoing process, and is not facilitated any more by requirements than guidelines.
According to the National Pledging Standards and Bylaws, pledges cannot be demanded to do more than is required of active brothers. Setting requirements for pledges contradicts this principle and is hypocritical, as we currently have no such requirements for active membership.
The existence of requirements does not allow for extenuating circumstances, which have been observed in the cases of several pledge classes in the past. Case in point: the pledge class for Fall ’04 and *cough*…Cregut…*cough*…School 16…*ach!*. (NOTE: Submotion 1 [“Aaron’s Clause”] was passed at this point in discussion.)
Other Related Points:
Please do NOT use or make reference to the common “you can afford to piss of 25% of brothers” joke. This is not helpful in any way, and could have a negative impact on the pledging process.
There was a big debate on the legal implications of requirements vs. guidelines, which I did not include above due to its vague, back-and-forth nature. The consensus reached at the end of it was that legal action taken as a result of the pledging process would probably result in review by the Rensselaer Union. We are a Union-affiliated organization, but not Union-run, and we do not have club status.
The pledging program is 9 weeks, with a 2-week grace period.
In theory, the pledging program can be put up for review by the brotherhood at any time over the course of the semester.
There was (obviously) discussion with regards to the Office Final being included as a requirement for pledging, but it is not included here do to its subjective nature, and what I perceive as a failure on my part to be able to express the points of either side adequately well.
New Business (HOORAY!!!):
A motion was passed to provide Jean Purtell (Union Admin Office) and Public Safety with a list of those with access to the office.
Announcements (ALMOST THERE…SO CLOSE!!!):
1.Do your LAF runs, dangit!
2.Pledge meetings will be held in Union 2120, 8pm on Thursdays.
3.Brian hates IED.
4.Can we #@*% adjourn this, please?!
Meeting adjourned at 9:00pm. It may have been 9pm a week later; we’re not really sure at this point…
National Disclaimer: This electronic document is intended for public viewing and is solely for personal reference. It should not be considered an authoritative source nor an official publication of Alpha Phi Omega. Inquiries regarding Alpha Phi Omega and its official publications may be directed to: Alpha Phi Omega, 14901 E. 42nd Street, Independence, MO, 64055 - USA. Alpha Phi Omega is a copyrighted, registered trademark in the USA. All rights reserved. www.apo.org
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
